America doesn't hate a national computerised database of gun owners?!
Shooting at live Twitch Madden tournament - four reported to be dead
- Thread starter djcj
- Start date
No it's all done on paper so mistakes are common and it takes ages to find anything or anyone.
A few mass shootings have happened where the person bought the gun from a gun store when they shouldn't have been able to because they weren't done in time or there was mistakes.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf-non-searchable-databases/amp/
They have a system that scans the paper documents but it's none indexed or keyword searchable. The NRA actively lobbies government to prevent a computerised system, which of course means they pay them.
The system is so terrible they can't actually undertake the searches needed daily to deal with crime.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...al-non-searchable-gun-databases-explained-392
It's utterly frightening really.
Edit sorry I missed tefals reply which covers it perfectly.
The system is so terrible they can't actually undertake the searches needed daily to deal with crime.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...al-non-searchable-gun-databases-explained-392
It's utterly frightening really.
Edit sorry I missed tefals reply which covers it perfectly.
https://www.thetrace.org/rounds/mexico-homicides-american-guns-forum/
Heh so it seems that a huge number of the guns used in crime in Mexico originate from gun stores in America.
The guns flow south not north as a few here have tried to claim.
Heh so it seems that a huge number of the guns used in crime in Mexico originate from gun stores in America.
The guns flow south not north as a few here have tried to claim.
https://www.gq.com/story/inside-federal-bureau-of-way-too-many-guns
Here's a GQ interview with one of the guys responsible for doing the manual tracing.
Here's a GQ interview with one of the guys responsible for doing the manual tracing.
nope, and it is literally illegal to have one. It has to be done manually, in a country of more than 300million people and atleast that many guns in public ownership, not counting law enforcement and military use.
at least they arent in jail for making a joke on the internetor shooting someone who has come to rob them
No, they send people to jail for voting after being already released from prison. And yes, if you shoot someone in the UK and you don't have a licence to own a gun then you have broken the law.
And name me one person jailed for "making a joke" in the UK, I'll wait.
Iirc creating one carries a fifteen year prison sentence. Feel the freedom.
Ok so mass shootings are about 3% of the total fire arms deaths (1,100 of about 33k), you're focused on them because you think a mass shooting is some nutter with an AR-15 because that's what you see in the news. A lot of mass shootings are some guy with a pistol shooting a load of rival drug dealers in Detroit and St. Louis. Things like the Vegas shootings are as rare as the Manchester bombings or the Paris shootings when you take into account America has 5x the population of the UK.
No. It is not the governments business to know who owns whats guns. I dont think they should be any paper records either. I would accept a computer data base that said how many guns have been sold new, with there seiral numbers, so they know how many guns are being sold on a state level, but not who bought it.
As long as you dont have a criminal record at the time you purchase the firearm, you should have the right to buy one.
you cant shoot anyone even with a licence XD
A lot of people have been fined and it looks like Count Dankula will be going to jail atm.
I miscarriage of the law in the us does not change the fact that they have freedom of speech under the law and no hate speech laws like we do in the UK and many other countries.
@Evangelion i will have to respond to you later. I dont have time to respond right now, because all you points have been split up into 200000 posts
Last edited:
Of course, but even owning a gun without a licence is in itself an offence long before you consider shooting someone with it.
https://web.archive.org/web20170621...iolent-song-lyrics-wins-civil-lawsuit/3769201 (archive link because that regional news website blocks non-regional people accessing it)
He was sent to jail because he couldn't afford the bond. He has since won a civil lawsuit against the arresting county.
More: https://www.kentucky.com/news/local/crime/article94559462.html
I think you need a better example.
Also I think he was referring to Count Dankula and his pug, you know the one where Ricky Gervais and David Baddiel got pretty upset with the verdict, his sentence didn't include jail but it could have.
Last edited:
At what point does maintaining a database infringe their right to own a gun? It doesn't, it was scaremongering by the NRA that outlawed any such monitoring then and in the future. They literally paid for this law to be made.No. It is not the governments business to know who owns whats guns. I dont think they should be any paper records either. I would accept a computer data base that said how many guns have been sold new, with there seiral numbers, so they know how many guns are being sold on a state level, but not who bought it.
As long as you dont have a criminal record at the time you purchase the firearm, you should have the right to buy one.
you cant shoot anyone even with a licence XD
A lot of people have been fined and it looks like Count Dankula will be going to jail atm.
I miscarriage of the law in the us does not change the fact that they have freedom of speech under the law and no hate speech laws like we do in the UK and many other countries.
@Evangelion i will have to respond to you later. I dont have time to respond right now, because all you points have been split up into 200000 posts
Why should having a criminal record (or mental issues) restrict your constitutional right to own a gun - don't answer, it's a rhetorical question really, but it demonstrates the hypocrisy of this whole gun debate. It's either a right or a privilege, and the constitution is pretty clear on it being a right.
Its a crap joke. I didn't find it that fun because it was poorly executed, but in the context it was in there is no way anyone should be fined or jailed.
Because the whole point is that the government don't know who has the guns. As I said earlier it gives them a massive tactical advantage in a war situation. It's not about the right to own a gun, in this case its about privacy and protection.
You have to right the bare arms. It is a constitutional right not a human right. If you break the law ie the constitution, you can loose your rights.
the judge clearly disagreed with you then. And Scotland has much stronger anti-sectarian and hate crime legislation than England does, and with good reason tbh.
Basically it's none of the governments business whether someone owns a gun as they're legally entitled to. The NRA's position is that it would be easier to confiscate firearms by a tyrannical government if they knew exactly who had them. This really isn't difficult stuff.
which was fine in 1776 when a weapon consisted of a musket which at best fired 3 rounds a minute with pretty poor accuracy to go along with it. Jim Jefferies does a fantastic routine on the benefits of having a musket over a semi-automatic rifle with a bump stock and an extended magazine.
Good luck fighting back against a Predator drone dropping a hellfire on your house if they chose to.