Why doesn't the US do something about mass shootings?

AdamSK said:
Omar Mateen did not have "a history of domestic violence;" his wife told reporters he had beat her after he died.

Upon what basis do we prevent him from owning a gun based on his record as it existed the day he bought it?
Click to expand...

So he DID have a history of domestic violence?

Under the point system if someone is able to report it (think about anonymous reporting of child abuse) then it would go on the file.

As I said, this DOES open up the opportunity for resentful friends or ex relationships to try to cause a problem.

But the point system wouldn't just be based on that. You'd need 9 points. And then if you could go to court (or maybe not even court, more like a regulatory office) and show that you were being slandered you'd still be able to buy a gun. You just wouldn't be able to do it that day.
 
truethat said:
So he DID have a history of domestic violence?
Click to expand...
Not that we know of.

Under the point system if someone is able to report it (think about anonymous reporting of child abuse) then it would go on the file.
Click to expand...
People can anonymously report domestic violence now. Nobody did. You can't claim your system works because we dig up dirt on a person only after they go postal unless you can establish why, under your system, the person would have been reported ahead of time when he wasn't under the current system.

People want to believe that something separates them from the monsters, so we will always work hard to dig up something unsavory about them that we can point to. But unless you can provide a genuine mechanism for figuring these things out ahead of time, then your system isn't helping.
 
Last edited:
AdamSK said:
Not that we know of.


People can anonymously report domestic violence now. Nobody did. You can't claim your system works because we dig up dirt on a person only after they go postal unless you can establish why, under your system, the person would have been reported ahead of time when he wasn't under the current system.

People want to believe that something separates them from the monsters, so we will always work hard to dig up something unsavory about them that we can point to. But unless you can provide a genuine mechanism for figuring these things out ahead of time, then your system isn't helping.
Click to expand...

Yes I can. The system wasn't in place at the time of the shooting. But if you were to be able to go online and report someone anonymously, I am pretty sure most people would do it. Even if his ex wife hadn't done it, one of her friends or family members may have. The same way people report Child Abuse and it starts an investigation.


This is the genuine mechanism. It's simple and easy to implement. You can report someone. One report won't be enough to make up 9 points. But several will.

So for example in this case the gun shop owner didn't even want to sell him the gun.

Now let's say worst case scenario Omar's wife is vindictive and lying. Well he's "blocked" and can appeal. He goes to a regulatory office, explains the situation and then maybe brings a character witness or two. And the regulatory office would either approve the appeal or deny the application.

But this would simply make it less EASY to walk into a gun store and buy a gun.

In general most people will be able to buy guns.
 
AdamSK said:
What is your evidence that his wife would have anonymously reported him under your system?
Click to expand...

I have clarified this several times to you. Even if his wife didn't do it her friends and her family may have. My evidence is based on the number of people who call in to anonymously report child abuse.

Those numbers show that 3.4 million calls are made each year. And if you read the article the are numerous unwarranted complaints. But it still starts the investigation.

The point system would not just rely on ONE complaint. It would need to have 9 points. And then as I keep repeating to you, the person would be able to appeal the decision. So it would create a safety net for those wrongly accused.

If your argument was that it would cost a lot of money and create a lot of paperwork, then maybe that would be a legitimate criticism. As it stands now you are not making a strong rebuttal.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...t-the-very-children-theyre-trying-to-protect/
 
I think the question should be : Why are there mainly lone wolfs carrying out suicidal missions in the US and Europe, while in Turkey they were able
to organize themselves to at least attempt a coup d'etat? The lone wolfs, school shooters etc. should organize! I guess Turkey is still more manly than
Europe or the US so you get a military counter-strike. In Europe and the US the emasculation process is more deeply ingrained into society, so you only
get violent insanity, not controlled resistance.
But I have to say that I don't think this war against the West can be won by guns or bombs. Which is why I resort to idea-terrorism.
It is, at first, mainly a psychological war. If I can reach the school shooters of the world ...
 
truethat said:
I have clarified this several times to you. Even if his wife didn't do it her friends and her family may have. My evidence is based on the number of people who call in to anonymously report child abuse.
Click to expand...

Anonymous reporting of domestic violence already exists, and the estimated rates for reporting are similar. What are you doing that you believe will greatly increase this rate?
 
It's not about greatly increasing the reporting. It's about having it be something that would get you points on a system that would block you from buying a guy without an appeal.

You admit that people already report people. So what's the issue? That information would be included on the file for the background check.. It's simple.
 
The point system would not just rely on ONE complaint. It would need to have 9 points. And then as I keep repeating to you, the person would be able to
appeal the decision. So it would create a safety net for those wrongly accused.
Click to expand...

All you need is enough people conspiring against somebody, then. This is the most effective way to get rid of people in this society. If the wrongly accused
starts complaining about a possible conspiracy against them, they'll be seen by the establishment as mentally unstable. This works like a charm!
All you need is a couple of people, a small, actual, conspiracy. The victim is always seen as mentally unstable, especially if you start insinuating things like
'You think the whole world is conspiring against you, don't you? You're mentally ill!'. Bonus points are given when the victim loses his temper and becomes
angry and/or violent. Then they're even more seen as mentally unstable.
Safety net, my ass. The best way to destroy somebody and get away with it, is what it is.
 
Concentrating on gun ownership controls will not solve the USA problem with injuries and deaths caused by privately owned guns. Whilst it is trivially true that less guns would mean less accidents etc that does not address the issue of why so many USA folk want to own guns. That is a cultural and societal issue. Guns in the USA are normalised, shooting people is portrayed in the media as being normal and usually exciting and so on. Until you address that issue the "gun problem" will not go away.

Many years ago I thought it was a matter of "gun control" but (from this board) learnt that is putting the cart before the horse. It is attitudes that have to change which can then be reinforced by stricter controls and so on.

And remember this is an immensely complicated issue. Any solution will also be immensely complicated.

I've used quotation marks for the like of gun problem in the above to indicate that for many people in the USA there is no actual problem that needs any kind of solution. And since that is a personal opinion there isn't an objective measure of what is right or wrong on any of 5he many sides of this debate.
 
TheAdversary said:
All you need is enough people conspiring against somebody, then. This is the most effective way to get rid of people in this society. If the wrongly accused
starts complaining about a possible conspiracy against them, they'll be seen by the establishment as mentally unstable. This works like a charm!
All you need is a couple of people, a small, actual, conspiracy. The victim is always seen as mentally unstable, especially if you start insinuating things like
'You think the whole world is conspiring against you, don't you? You're mentally ill!'. Bonus points are given when the victim loses his temper and becomes
angry and/or violent. Then they're even more seen as mentally unstable.
Safety net, my ass. The best way to destroy somebody and get away with it, is what it is.
Click to expand...


Well sorry, don't be an ******* in life and you won't have so many problems getting a gun. And as I have pointed out, the person is able to appeal this decision and point out this conspiracy against them and have the block lifted.

But let's say the evaluatory board is against them and they are denied.

I am willing to have an innocent person denied the right to buy a gun based on something like this. The same way I am willing to have an innocent person on the sex offender list. I don't like it, but I consider it a fair trade off. I consider it worth the trade off to unfairly profile someone in an airport in order to prevent a bomb from getting on a plane. They have the same problem do they not? Lots of people can call up and make baseless accusations against them and get them placed on a watch list.

And as I have pointed out, nearly 70% of this country functions just fine, just fine, without owning a gun. So I honestly don't see what the big deal is.
 
Last edited:
truethat said:
I consider it worth the trade off to unfairly profile someone in an airport in order to prevent a bomb from getting on a plane.
Click to expand...

truethat said:
The same way I am willing to have an innocent person on the sex offender list.
Click to expand...

He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.
 
People have become hysterical when it comes to terrorism. In the entire Western world, and not confined to just IS or other Islamic groups.
And the hysteria is a sign that the terrorists are successful. One of the primary objectives of terrorism, to establish fear and confusion, has been achieved.
It's becoming clearer that the terrorists, even if they're not a coherent group as a whole, are winning. This realization is going to incite more
hysteria. In Holland, where I live, they recently closed part of a high way because some random guy in a bus mumbled some incoherent things that some
people thought contained the word 'bomb'. It's insane, it's a war. And if government and society are crumbling, it's not a bad idea to invest in a gun
and start learning how to shoot, fight etc. I practice my fighting routines daily; I have practice weapons, not real guns but useful for target practice,
and swords. I invested in an entire military outfit and I went camping in the woods to learn how to survive. Sure, people think you're crazy or just
another conspiracy/survivalist but I think this time the cry-wolf is actually valid. Mass hysteria is just another solid indicator for something seriously
off in our society. In the words of Michael Corleone : They might win.
 
truethat said:
It's not about greatly increasing the reporting. It's about having it be something that would get you points on a system that would block you from buying a guy without an appeal.

You admit that people already report people. So what's the issue? That information would be included on the file for the background check.. It's simple.
Click to expand...

The issue is that Omar Mateen wasn't reported. Now that you have acknowledged that your system wouldn't change that, we have an answer to your challenge about whom your system still would have missed.
 
cullennz said:
A lot of states don't seem to mind the same logic with the death penalty.

If a couple of people who turn out to be innocent die it's cool as long as you kill the bad ones
Click to expand...

This fact is why I'm against the death penalty.
 
truethat said:
That's not going to work though. We have a second Amendment that guarantees us the right to bear arms.

I still think that many foreigners do not understand WHY people are so gung ho on the 2nd Amendment issue. It's a unique thing in the US. (Please note I am not suggesting that it is in any way superior to other countries or that other countries don't have their own.)

However, to Americans, the Bill of Rights are considered sacrosanct. If you **** with one of them you open the door to **** with the rest of them.

Many people seem to think that the conservatives in this country are all about the government controlling everything. They are not. They are very suspicious of the government and want the government to stay out of people's lives.

Their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is to protect citizens from Government tyranny. Every time I've seen this topic come up, no matter how many times this is pointed out the other side just totally ignores it. But it's the main reason that they are clinging to their guns.

Not for protection from someone breaking into their home or a wild gunman shooting up a shopping mall.

But to create a deterrent for the GOVERNMENT to enact tyranny in this country with military rule. When you look at how the government tossed the 4th and 5th Amendments out the window for Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay you can see why these people view the potential for Government Tyranny as imminent and not some far off random possibility.

So there are two issues at play here. One is that they won't give up their guns and that they think they should have access to the best military weapons they can get their hands on. If everyone could only carry handguns or rifles, it would be next to impossible to stand up to a government attack on civilians. (And yes they do believe that this could happen)

Second, once you mess with ONE of the Bill of Rights, it opens the door for messing with the others. And that is something that is taken very seriously.

We saw this happen after 911 when John Ashcroft pushed the idea that the government needed to be able to have the right to hack into people's computers for Homeland Security reasons.

People were willing to give up their protected rights because of fear mongering. So this is exactly how they see the push to ban weapons. It's use of fear mongering to try to get people to give up their guns. And to them this is the first step in Government Tyranny. (This is why they referred to Sandy Hook as a "false flag" and said that 911 was an inside job.)

This is how they see the world. I think many foreigners confuse "conservatives" with people who would vote for Trump because he's racist and says the things they feel inside. The main argument I've seen for the approval of Trump is that he's not a "Washington Player" and his lack of experience is portrayed as "non corrupted" He's not a "government player."

So all the homicides in this country mean basically nothing to them. They consider it par for the course and worth the risk.

That's why we need to address the mass shootings. (And why they think the mass shootings are false flags designed to get us to give up ALL guns) They will not be willing to consider any sort of policy that doesn't allow the good guys to keep their guns.

And their angle is that MENTAL ILLNESS is the problem. Not gun ownership.

Here's an interview with Piers Morgan and you can see what I mean. He totally ignores what Ben Shapiro is saying and spins out in an emotional argument. But from the get go the guy starts talking about "that's why my ancestors are ashes in Europe"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHIQtxLCgrM
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right. Other people do not really understand why americans view having guns as a human right, whilst enslaving black people, ethnic cleansing of native americans, denying women equality was not a breach of the bill of rights. I mean it did a really good job of protecting those people against the tyranny of government.

Do USAians really believe that if they surrendered their guns that the UN or the illuminati will march in? Other countries manage perfectly well with regarding gun ownership as privilege and have had no trouble with their government.

Even if you believe in the right to have guns it is completely incomprehensible to the rest of the world why a complete registration of gun ownership's an infringement of that right surely this is part of being well regulated.

My guess is that if all legally held arms in 'civilian' hands mysteriously disappeared overnight robbery might transiently rise but deaths would fall a crook with a gun would be in less of a hurry to shoot if confident his victim had no gun. If the only people allowed to have guns were LEO's then it would be easier to convict for illegal gun possession. yes it might take a few years but the end result would be fewer children killing, fewer suicides, and probably fewer mass fatalities.

I know this will not happen, but it really is incomprehensible to the rest of the world the beliefs about guns and 'rights'. (Yes I know the US is a huge country and its people have disparate beliefs and many will have anti-gun views, lets face it Penn was a Quaker and you cannot get more hard line anti-gun than Quakers.)
 
Last edited:
TheAdversary said:
People have become hysterical when it comes to terrorism. In the entire Western world, and not confined to just IS or other Islamic groups.
And the hysteria is a sign that the terrorists are successful. One of the primary objectives of terrorism, to establish fear and confusion, has been achieved.
It's becoming clearer that the terrorists, even if they're not a coherent group as a whole, are winning. This realization is going to incite more
hysteria. In Holland, where I live, they recently closed part of a high way because some random guy in a bus mumbled some incoherent things that some
people thought contained the word 'bomb'. It's insane, it's a war. And if government and society are crumbling, it's not a bad idea to invest in a gun
and start learning how to shoot, fight etc. I practice my fighting routines daily; I have practice weapons, not real guns but useful for target practice,
and swords. I invested in an entire military outfit and I went camping in the woods to learn how to survive. Sure, people think you're crazy or just
another conspiracy/survivalist but I think this time the cry-wolf is actually valid. Mass hysteria is just another solid indicator for something seriously
off in our society. In the words of Michael Corleone : They might win.
Click to expand...

I think it is worth considering how Northern Ireland coped with decades of intensive terrorism, people continued to live a normal life, gun ownership remained restricted, many people came strongly anti-gun, anti-military.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom