Today's mass shooting in the US

Newbie007 said:
Well only 2% of those on the watch list would qualify to own a gun, being on the watch list is in itself not a disquailfier becuase its not against the law.
Click to expand...

Where's your evidence that only 2% would qualify? It seems to be a much bigger percentage than that. And really, how can you defend that the 2nd amendment trumps being on a no fly list, member of a terrorist organisation or being on a terrorist watch list? It would be the same as allowing pedos to work in schools. Seriously if you can be banned from flying as you are deemed a risk to blowing the plane up or hijacking it and be a full time member of ISIS and you think its still perfectly fine for them to buy and own assault weapons or their "2nd amendment rights" are being infringed then there is no hope of stopping mass shootings and the US deserve everything they get. Why aren't people in jail allowed to carry guns then? Surely they have as much right as terrorists to legally own guns?

In a 2010 report, the Government Accountability Office noted that "Membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives under current federal law," and individuals on the No Fly List are not barred from purchasing guns.[25] According to GAO data, between 2004 and 2010, people on terrorism watch lists—including the No Fly List as well as other separate lists—attempted to buy guns and explosives more than 1,400 times, and succeeded 1,321 times (more than 90% of cases).[26]

Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey repeatedly introduced legislation to bar individuals on the terror watch lists (such as the No Fly List) from buying firearms or explosives, but these efforts have not succeeded.[25][26][27] Senator Dianne Feinstein of California revived the legislation after the November 2015 Paris attacks and President Barack Obama has called for such legislation to be approved.[25]

Republicans in Congress such as Senate Homeland Security Committee chair Ron Johnson and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan oppose this measure, citing due process concerns and efficacy, respectively.[25] Republicans have blocked attempts by Democrats to attach these provisions to Republican-backed measures.[28]

The American Civil Liberties Union has voiced opposition to barring weapons sales to individuals listed on the current form of the No Fly List, stating that: "There is no constitutional bar to reasonable regulation of guns, and the No Fly List could serve as one tool for it, but only with major reform."[29] Specifically, the ACLU's position is that the government's current redress process—the procedure by which listed individuals can petition for removal from the list—does not meet the requirements of the Constitution's Due Process Clause because the process does not "provide meaningful notice of the reasons our clients are blacklisted, the basis for those reasons, and a hearing before a neutral decision-maker."[29]

In December 2015, Feinstein's amendment to bar individuals on the terror watch list from purchasing firearms failed in the Senate on a 45-54 vote.[30] Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas put forth a competing proposal to "give the attorney general the power to impose a 72-hour delay for individuals on the terror watch list seeking to purchase a gun and it could become a permanent ban if a judge determines there is probable cause during that time window."[30] The measure, too, failed, on a 55-45 vote (60 votes were required to proceed).[30] The votes on both the Feinstein measure and the Cornyn measure were largely along party lines.[30]
Click to expand...
 
Newbie007 said:
The FBI's own statistics would indicate it would, however the UK isnt the US, so there is no way of being 100% sure is there. Should smoking and drinking be banned?
Click to expand...

Link? WOuld be interested to see the stats from the FBI which shows that if guns were controlled in the US the number of deaths and sexual assaults would increase?
 
Greebo said:
Where's your evidence that only 2% would qualify? It seems to be a much bigger percentage than that. And really, how can you defend that the 2nd amendment trumps being on a no fly list, member of a terrorist organisation or being on a terrorist watch list? It would be the same as allowing pedos to work in schools. Seriously if you can be banned from flying as you are deemed a risk to blowing the plane up or hijacking it and be a full time member of ISIS and you think its still perfectly fine for them to buy and own assault weapons or their "2nd amendment rights" are being infringed then there is no hope of stopping mass shootings and the US deserve everything they get. Why aren't people in jail allowed to carry guns then? Surely they have as much right as terrorists to legally own guns?
Click to expand...

https://www.factcheck.org/2015/12/rubio-on-terrorist-watchlist/
 
Newbie007 said:
The FBI's own statistics would indicate it would, however the UK isnt the US, so there is no way of being 100% sure is there. Should smoking and drinking be banned?
Click to expand...

What does banning cigs and booze have to do with whether it’s sensible for the general populace to have easy access to devices capable of killing people from a distance?
 
Guns are just an object, same as cars, same as knives etc. If people want to ban guns because they are involved in x number of homocides per year then why not smoking and drinking, deaths from either of those outweigh deaths through the others by a massive distance.
 
Dis86 said:
Same goes for gun ownership.
Click to expand...
Exactly, who can own a gun in the us (and elsewhere) is evolving all the time. Those that are Pro gun ownership oppose anymore changes to the 2nd amendment as they believe they has already been too many concessions beyond what the 2nd amendment essentially stands for. Those opposed say not enough. They have to find a middle ground, however is today's politically charged climate that seems an impossibility.
 
VincentHanna said:
Because people choose to smoke themselves to death.

They don't choose to get shot.
Click to expand...

You don't choose to smoke, you choose to smoke the first few times, then you're chemically addicted to nicotine. Then your brain is making up reasons why you need to keep smoking and why it's justified to have one last cigarette
 
Last edited:
VincentHanna said:
It's still a choice to start smoking (I never have)

Getting shot isn't.
Click to expand...

People start smoking at an early age before they're able to make an informed decision or before they're able to properly understand the massive health and financial impacts it will have, by the time they're in their late 20's and decide they want to quit they've been smoking 15 years and it's incredibly difficult to quit. If you want to ban guns to save lives you'd definitely ban smoking, same with alcohol. Why are other drugs illegal? It's all arbitrary and just based on what's socially acceptable.
 
You can still die from 2nd hand smoking though, regardless of if you've never touched it. Smoking is arguably worse aswell, there are zero benefits to ciggies (apart from that sweet sweet nicotine rush).

There's a massive lack of information and missinformation regarding guns and gun ownership so it's no wonder people are fearful and uneducated around the issue.
 
Roar87 said:
People start smoking at an early age before they're able to make an informed decision or before they're able to properly understand the massive health and financial impacts it will have, by the time they're in their late 20's and decide they want to quit they've been smoking 15 years and it's incredibly difficult to quit. If you want to ban guns to save lives you'd definitely ban smoking, same with alcohol. Why are other drugs illegal? It's all arbitrary and just based on what's socially acceptable.
Click to expand...

So, still a choice then, ignorant as it may be.

But you agree then? More control over guns and more control over nicotine would save lives?
 
Newbie007 said:
You can still die from 2nd hand smoking though, regardless of if you've never touched it. Smoking is arguably worse aswell, there are zero benefits to ciggies (apart from that sweet sweet nicotine rush).

There's a massive lack of information and missinformation regarding guns and gun ownership so it's no wonder people are fearful and uneducated around the issue.
Click to expand...

And what benefit is there from guns, for the vast majority of people, aside from that sweet, sweet hit of dopamine when you fire it?
 
Newbie007 said:
Guns are just an object, same as cars, same as knives etc. If people want to ban guns because they are involved in x number of homocides per year then why not smoking and drinking, deaths from either of those outweigh deaths through the others by a massive distance.
Click to expand...

its much easier (you don't have to be as committed to the act, you don't need to overpower or surprise the other person) / faster / convenient to kill someone with a gun...

Cars? yes they will be automated eventually because we know they are dangerous currently they are required for mass transit and banning them would destroy the economy
Smoking/drinking? there are people advocating banning that..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom