Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
Thu Jun 16, 2016, 07:02 AM Jun 2016

Cross post from GD


A serious question

First I am for UBC and have no big issues using the Bush watch lists to prevent firearms purchases as long as due process rights are not infringed.

Would these have prevented Sandy Hook, columbine, San Bernardino, Orlando, Virginia Tech?

Please name one mass shooting that would have been prevented, please be honest.

Once again, put this into law but please do not think it will prevent most mass shooting events.
21 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Cross post from GD (Original Post) Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 OP
Seatbelts do not prevent ALL motor vehicle deaths either... hlthe2b Jun 2016 #1
Never said all, please do not put words in my mouth Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #2
It is a distinction without a difference... It is setting an impossible standard hlthe2b Jun 2016 #4
It is a large difference, words matter Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #6
"Any" and "all" is a "distinction without a difference"? Straw Man Jun 2016 #14
The very King's English is an NRA TalkingPointŠ. Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #16
I should have known Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #17
Don't expect much from them and you'll never be disappointed. DonP Jun 2016 #18
True nt Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #19
It's hard to discuss without complete information. JonathanRackham Jun 2016 #3
Apparently not Orlando Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #5
Hmmm?? JonathanRackham Jun 2016 #9
it would have, maybe, impacted the means gejohnston Jun 2016 #7
.... and when they do buy full autos from the local dealer ... DonP Jun 2016 #15
The whole point isn't preventing anything...it's to lead to a total ban. ileus Jun 2016 #8
I'm in agreement with your post... Puha Ekapi Jun 2016 #10
The 2 sides of my coin on the UBC issue discntnt_irny_srcsm Jun 2016 #11
what I have to say, this guy says it better gejohnston Jun 2016 #12
+ infinity discntnt_irny_srcsm Jun 2016 #13
Outstanding, Mr. Johnston. pablo_marmol Jun 2016 #21
Except for collection of guns, which will never happen, nothing will stop mass shooters. Nt Logical Jun 2016 #20

hlthe2b

(106,061 posts)
1. Seatbelts do not prevent ALL motor vehicle deaths either...
Thu Jun 16, 2016, 07:33 AM
Jun 2016

but why is it that--only with firearms-- we must show that ANY change to gun laws MUST, NECESSARILY, prevent ALL gun-related mass murders/atrocities?

It is waaay past time that we move past this blatant ploy promoted by NRA, that, unfortunately has been so successful (until NOW) in bamboozling the public with respect to even the smallest and most logical measures to control gun access.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
2. Never said all, please do not put words in my mouth
Thu Jun 16, 2016, 07:36 AM
Jun 2016

I asked if they would have prevented ANY, a big difference. Thanks for commenting.

hlthe2b

(106,061 posts)
4. It is a distinction without a difference... It is setting an impossible standard
Thu Jun 16, 2016, 07:40 AM
Jun 2016

which is exactly what fervent NRA tries to do with its "line in the sand" in opposition TO ANY and ALL restrictions on guns.

Straw Man

(6,760 posts)
14. "Any" and "all" is a "distinction without a difference"?
Thu Jun 16, 2016, 12:36 PM
Jun 2016

And an "impossible standard"? C'mon now.

A: Can you show me where your proposal will have any effect whatsoever on the problem?
B: You're setting an impossible standard!

JonathanRackham

(1,604 posts)
3. It's hard to discuss without complete information.
Thu Jun 16, 2016, 07:39 AM
Jun 2016

I believe it could have impacted San Bernardino and Orlando. Again, list of supporting information is not complete. The intelligence agencies are learning but not perfect. I don't want an Orwellian future.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
5. Apparently not Orlando
Thu Jun 16, 2016, 07:42 AM
Jun 2016

As the murderer was not on the list. Possible in San Bernardino as it was a straw purchase and charges have been filed. As far as I understand, they were never identified as being on one of the lists.

JonathanRackham

(1,604 posts)
9. Hmmm??
Thu Jun 16, 2016, 08:35 AM
Jun 2016

Have they commenced prosecuting the straw buy in San Bernardino? Overall the penalties for straw buys are not harsh enough to discourage people. The buyer should be charged as a conspirator.

Things are still gray with respect to Orlando.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
7. it would have, maybe, impacted the means
Thu Jun 16, 2016, 07:46 AM
Jun 2016

either could have just as easily went to the local heroin dealer and got a full auto, like they do in Europe.

 

DonP

(6,185 posts)
15. .... and when they do buy full autos from the local dealer ...
Thu Jun 16, 2016, 01:08 PM
Jun 2016

... and use them in a crime, the same "educated" voices will demand that we ban single action revolvers to stop the carnage.

Puha Ekapi

(594 posts)
10. I'm in agreement with your post...
Thu Jun 16, 2016, 09:23 AM
Jun 2016

..One of my big concerns with a push for bans (which won't do a damn thing to prevent criminals/terrorists) is that it could quite possibly give us a President Trump.

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,565 posts)
11. The 2 sides of my coin on the UBC issue
Thu Jun 16, 2016, 10:27 AM
Jun 2016
>>Pros: Individuals will have a means by which they can be assured the person to whom they transfer a gun is not prohibited. As things are I can favor allowing NICS access by private persons through a law enforcement office for a voluntary check. This would be a tool for a regular individual to be certain that the person to whom they transfer a gun isn't on the prohibited list.

Making this mandatory does two things that I consider problems.

First, if both persons are fine with breaking the law, making UBCs mandatory won't stop them. Making UBCs mandatory would point to developing a means for administratively enforcing that law. That would be registration.

Second, inane "crimes" have resulted in places where BGCs are mandatory for all transfers. Having to get a BGC to lend your brother a gun for an hour or 3 weeks is stupid. Having to get another on its return is even more stupid.


>>Cons: I don't see how UBCs will have a big impact on crime. As I said above, I don't see them as a big problem for the honest regular folks, if they're reasonable. Without a big picture game plan on the part of the pro-control folks which excludes things such as registration, bans, onerous transfer BGCs and the like, a mandatory UBC law smacks of incremental style control and is viewed as the edge of the slippery slope.


I'm okay with a watch list, no-fly list, list of active investigations, etc. being grounds for certain restrictions, IF the individual's presence on the list is subject to judicial appeal and scrutiny. If the status of an individual is seriously and sufficiently problematic and requires secrecy and the need to classified beyond that appeal and scrutiny, the individual should be arrested and charged or deported.

Secret lists of legal residents/citizens + denial of rights = evil.

If you want to investigate someone because of "reasonable suspicion", good, that's a valid use of law enforcement. If they need to make a list of those folks, fine. If the only purpose to the extra-judicial list is the restriction of certain rights, they should go pound sand.

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,565 posts)
13. + infinity
Thu Jun 16, 2016, 12:14 PM
Jun 2016

It's been 40 years since I last viewed that scene.
It says what needs to said.

Thanks for the link.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Cross post from GD