|
Post by Old Badger on Aug 2, 2015 10:50:59 GMT -5
Imagine if that gun hadn't been so easy to come by. There'd be a Memphis cop alive right now, and his family wouldn't be grieving. But, you know, some guy with a hard-on for shooting at stuff might have had to do more paperwork to get his own weapon, and lord knows, we can't have that!
|
|
|
Post by brisco0317 on Aug 2, 2015 12:49:08 GMT -5
See linky, one of the attackers in the Garland, Texas terror incident bought a 9mm hand gun involved in Fast & Furious - www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-garland-gun-20150801-story.html#page=1
"What Soofi could not have known was that Lone Wolf was at the center of a federal sting operation known as Fast and Furious, targeting Mexican drug lords and traffickers. The idea of the secret program was to allow Lone Wolf to sell illegal weapons to criminals and straw purchasers, and track the guns back to large smuggling networks and drug cartels.
Instead, federal agents lost track of the weapons and the operation became a fiasco, particularly after several of the missing guns were linked to shootings in Mexico and the 2010 killing of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in Arizona.
Soofi's attempt to buy a gun caught the attention of authorities, who slapped a seven-day hold on the transaction, according to his Feb. 24, 2010, firearms transaction record, which was reviewed by the Los Angeles Times. Then, for reasons that remain unclear, the hold was lifted after 24 hours, and Soofi got the 9-millimeter."
A day after the attack, the Department of Justice sent an "urgent firearms disposition request" to Lone Wolf, seeking more information about Soofi and the pistol he bought in 2010, according to a June 1 letter from Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, to U.S. Atty. Gen. Loretta Lynch.
The FBI so far has refused to release any details, including serial numbers, about the weapons used in Garland by Soofi and Simpson. Senate investigators are now pressing law enforcement agencies for answers, raising the chilling possibility that a gun sold during the botched Fast and Furious operation ended up being used in a terrorist attack against Americans."
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Aug 2, 2015 21:37:00 GMT -5
So, is there a point there?
|
|
|
Post by mudcannon on Aug 3, 2015 9:01:17 GMT -5
So, is there a point there? OB, Point is obviously that Obama is not an American citizen. Duh.
|
|
|
Post by brisco0317 on Aug 3, 2015 9:09:49 GMT -5
Our government may very well have armed a domestic terrorist, nothing to be concerned about...
|
|
|
Post by brisco0317 on Aug 3, 2015 9:14:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Aug 3, 2015 10:11:47 GMT -5
Our government may very well have armed a domestic terrorist, nothing to be concerned about...
So, no, no point at all. Gotcha.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Aug 3, 2015 10:13:26 GMT -5
An update, the suspected murderer was out of federal prison on "supervised" release. How did he get a gun?
Exactly! Just how easy is it for certified criminals to get guns in this country? Very easy. Who resists making it harder? The NRA, shills for the dealers and manufacturers. Thanks for making that excellent point!
|
|
|
Post by brisco0317 on Aug 3, 2015 10:27:51 GMT -5
Good bye. I thought this would be a place to have some serious discussions/debates on issues but that is clearly not the case. It's just a place to control/steer the narrative. I'm just wasting my time here so enjoy!
|
|
|
Post by mudcannon on Aug 3, 2015 14:20:51 GMT -5
I don't think anyone disagrees with you, brisco. Not sure why anyone would not be up in arms about a botched gun investigation that led to violence.
But curious why you waited until it was a domestic terror attack instead of the other murders that had already been perpetrated with said guns.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Aug 3, 2015 14:57:47 GMT -5
Good bye. I thought this would be a place to have some serious discussions/debates on issues but that is clearly not the case. It's just a place to control/steer the narrative. I'm just wasting my time here so enjoy!
No one was going to defend Fast & Furious, so my question still stands: What was the point?
At the same time, why don't you pick up on the question I raised about the ease with which even obvious criminals can access guns? That question has implications for actual gun policy. I'd love to know what you think we should do to fix that problem, if anything.
|
|
|
Post by muddydove on Aug 3, 2015 15:04:37 GMT -5
I don't think anyone disagrees with you, brisco. Not sure why anyone would not be up in arms about a botched gun investigation that led to violence. But curious why you waited until it was a domestic terror attack instead of the other murders that had already been perpetrated with said guns. In April 1944, the Americans conducted a practice run for D-Day, called Operation Tiger. It was a complete screw-up and 946 Americans died needlessly. I real life, sometimes things go very badly. The Fast and Furious thing was also a screw-up. But it doesn't mean that law enforcement should just stop doing what they do.
|
|
|
Post by mudcannon on Aug 3, 2015 16:55:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by muddydove on Aug 3, 2015 18:14:39 GMT -5
Poor simulations. I'm sure I'd be able to handle myself like Viggo Mortenson's character did in A History of Violence.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Aug 3, 2015 18:17:07 GMT -5
OK, it seemed to me that gun issues are a hardy perennial, so I am combining several recent threads to create a sort of master thread on guns and gun policies, which I am pinning to the top.
|
|
|
Post by Leftylarry on Aug 5, 2015 12:31:38 GMT -5
OB doesn't get it. Nobody wants the wrong people to get guns, not even the gun companies because it hurts them long term and they know it. They spend a fortune defending themselves every time there's an incident. Almost every DEM sponsored gun control law was NOT about keeping the wrong people from getting guns but also has little hidden treatsies that would give list of gun owners to the wrong people and make it harder to keep guns and acquire them for model citizens. The left is tricky and dishonest, they'll use the iRS, pass laws so they can't find out what's in them afterwards, etc. etc. All their proposals do more than just make it harder for bad guys to get guns because they care more about getting the guns out of the hands those of us who are good citizens then they care about stopping bad guys.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Aug 5, 2015 13:50:08 GMT -5
They spend a fortune defending themselves every time there's an incident.
No, they don't. Here's why: "In 2005, former President George W. Bush signed into law the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - the "No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association" - which immunized gun makers and dealers from civil lawsuits for the crimes committed with the products they sell." link
However, there may be another way: "Pam Bosley and Annette Nance-Holt both lost teenage sons to gun violence on the streets near the church. Almost a decade later, Bosley still screams when she visits the cemetery, and Nance-Holt still cannot bear to move anything in her son’s bedroom. Now they have hit upon a novel approach to try to stem the violence plaguing this neighborhood. In an unusual lawsuit filed July 7, Bosley and Nance-Holt claim their civil rights have been violated by three suburban governments that they say do not adequately regulate gun shops near the Chicago border...
"On average, police have recovered a gun sold at Chuck’s Gun Shop in Riverdale every day for the past 10 years, McCarthy said. Gun shops in the three villages — together with another store in Indiana — supplied almost a fifth of all firearms found at Chicago crime scenes from 2009 to 2013, according to a report published last year by the mayor’s office." link
This is a brilliant move! Even if they don't win the case, they are holding these villages up to shame and ridicule. The cops in most big cities know where the local criminals get their guns, but those are outside their own jurisdictions, so there's little they can do about it. Those communities don't care about the kids being killed in the cities because they're somebody else's kids and , well, they're often black. So, when the NRA talks about lax enforcement as a problem in gun-related crimes, of course they have a point. But the bigger point is that they're just lying: the reason for lax enforcement is that they have pushed the policies that weaken enforcement in the first place.
Sometime I would like to see someone take the NRA as an organization, and Wayne LaPierre personally, to civil court for damages inflicted by their lobbying efforts. No, they might not win, but a huge class-action suit could cost them hundreds of millions of dollars (less for lobbying), and Mike Bloomberg probably could finance the other side by himself. Hell, I'd contribute to that case!
|
|
|
Post by jon on Aug 7, 2015 9:14:06 GMT -5
"The cops in most big cities know where the local criminals get their guns, but those are outside their own jurisdictions, so there's little they can do about it. "
Duh.....if you know anything about current "infringements" (Constitutional?) on gun ownership and possession ---do you?---you know exactly who has the responsibility and plenty of power to enforce the really very stringent regulations on gun sales. You make a point about race. Well one theory re: why ATF won't enforce law on illegal possession is that they would be prosecuting mostly young Black males----not what Obama wants, is it?
So where is Obama's ATF if everyone knows a shop is selling guns illegally? YOu want more laws to further restrict legal gun ownership but don't give a shit about enforcing existing law.---Well, except maybe if you can catch a conservative, Christian, old White man in a technical violation. Fine if the Dem AG runs guns to Mexican drug cartels though, right?
BTW the NRA would be very happy to see better enforcement on illegal gun sales.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Aug 7, 2015 9:34:11 GMT -5
"The cops in most big cities know where the local criminals get their guns, but those are outside their own jurisdictions, so there's little they can do about it. " Duh.....if you know anything about current "infringements" (Constitutional?) on gun ownership and possession ---do you?---you know exactly who has the responsibility and plenty of power to enforce the really very stringent regulations on gun sales. You make a point about race. Well one theory re: why ATF won't enforce law on illegal possession is that they would be prosecuting mostly young Black males----not what Obama wants, is it? So where is Obama's ATF if everyone knows a shop is selling guns illegally? YOu want more laws to further restrict legal gun ownership but don't give a shit about enforcing existing law.---Well, except maybe if you can catch a conservative, Christian, old White man in a technical violation. Fine if the Dem AG runs guns to Mexican drug cartels though, right? BTW the NRA would be very happy to see better enforcement on illegal gun sales.
LOL, please, jon, we've been down this road enough times that you have to know these silly arguments won't fly with me, right? So:
Why does the NRA lobby (really, buy) Members of Congress to prevent funding for CDC to investigate the patterns of gun violence, including tracking the source of weapons used in crimes?
Why does the NRA get useful idiots such as the former A-G (later Governor and now convicted felon) Bob McDonald to threaten NYC police investigators for uncovering the violations of federal gun laws by VA death-merchants who supply guns to their city's criminal class along the I-95 corridor?
Why does the NRA insist on a federal law that forces the FBI to okay gun purchases within 72 hours, even when we know that this allows many people who should be prevented from buying guns to do so?
Why does the NRA prevent closing the "gun show" loophole through which we absolutely know criminals and--especially--crazy people out to kill acquire weapons?
They do all that because they want to strengthen enforcement? Just who is supposed to swallow that nonsense?
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Aug 7, 2015 9:57:54 GMT -5
"An 11-year-old boy has been charged with manslaughter after sneaking a handgun out of his father's closet and accidentally shooting a 3-year-old boy, according to prosecutors. At a preliminary hearing in juvenile court on Wednesday, the youth heard the charges he is facing: manslaughter -- death by weapon aimed with intent but without malice, and felony firearm [sic]...
"In the shooting on Monday, authorities say the 11-year-old was visiting his father in the 16000 block of Eastwood on Detroit's east side when he took a handgun from the bedroom closet. For reasons that aren't yet clear, the boy then threw the gun out of the window into the back yard, retrieved the gun outside and jumped into a parked vehicle in the home's back yard while carrying the gun, authorities said. At some point later, the 3-year-old, Elijah Walker, got into the car and was shot in the face, according to prosecutors...
"During the preliminary hearing, the 11-year-old boy looked lost and frequently zoned out while seated in a chair in the cramped and clinical-green courtroom." link
This is the dead child; he's younger than my granddaughter, a preschooler, but now he's dead:
Nothing drives me crazier than the gun-toters insisting that widespread gun ownership is good for public safety. This is empirically wrong, as all the data show. Having a gun in your home greatly increases the chance that someone in your home will be shot and injured or killed. The myth of "home protection" propounded by the NRA on behalf of manufacturers and dealers is cynical because they know the statistics, too. I had a friend killed at age 16 in one of these accidents, and have spent the many years since paying attention to research on such deaths. It is an appalling toll. In the first half of 2015 alone:
27,931 reported instances of violence involving guns 14,398 gun-induced injuries 7,171 gun-induced deaths 1,828 children killed or injured by guns link
In just six months. Why do we put up with this? No other country is this stupid.
|
|
|
Post by mudcannon on Aug 7, 2015 19:46:04 GMT -5
"The cops in most big cities know where the local criminals get their guns, but those are outside their own jurisdictions, so there's little they can do about it. " Duh.....if you know anything about current "infringements" (Constitutional?) on gun ownership and possession ---do you?---you know exactly who has the responsibility and plenty of power to enforce the really very stringent regulations on gun sales. You make a point about race. Well one theory re: why ATF won't enforce law on illegal possession is that they would be prosecuting mostly young Black males----not what Obama wants, is it? So where is Obama's ATF if everyone knows a shop is selling guns illegally? YOu want more laws to further restrict legal gun ownership but don't give a shit about enforcing existing law.---Well, except maybe if you can catch a conservative, Christian, old White man in a technical violation. Fine if the Dem AG runs guns to Mexican drug cartels though, right? BTW the NRA would be very happy to see better enforcement on illegal gun sales. Did ATF enforce illegal possession of firearms under Bush?
|
|
|
Post by leftylarry on Aug 12, 2015 13:59:34 GMT -5
"the "Navy-Marine training center" most assuredly was not in a gun-free zone, and that's where the Marines died." Documentation for that assumption? I think not. "Clinton’s actions birthed Army regulations “forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection.” In other words, thanks to Clinton, citizens who join the military to use guns to defend liberty abroad cannot practice their constitutional right to keep and bear arms while on active duty at home. " www.breitbart.com/national-security/2013/09/17/when-military-gun-free/They also can't drink beer legally if they are under 21. Please don't confuse them with facts, they hate that. You are 100% correct, they can't carry arms, are defenseless.
|
|
|
Post by brisco0317 on Aug 18, 2015 15:16:23 GMT -5
"An 11-year-old boy has been charged with manslaughter after sneaking a handgun out of his father's closet and accidentally shooting a 3-year-old boy, according to prosecutors. At a preliminary hearing in juvenile court on Wednesday, the youth heard the charges he is facing: manslaughter -- death by weapon aimed with intent but without malice, and felony firearm [sic]...
"In the shooting on Monday, authorities say the 11-year-old was visiting his father in the 16000 block of Eastwood on Detroit's east side when he took a handgun from the bedroom closet. For reasons that aren't yet clear, the boy then threw the gun out of the window into the back yard, retrieved the gun outside and jumped into a parked vehicle in the home's back yard while carrying the gun, authorities said. At some point later, the 3-year-old, Elijah Walker, got into the car and was shot in the face, according to prosecutors...
"During the preliminary hearing, the 11-year-old boy looked lost and frequently zoned out while seated in a chair in the cramped and clinical-green courtroom." link
This is the dead child; he's younger than my granddaughter, a preschooler, but now he's dead:
Nothing drives me crazier than the gun-toters insisting that widespread gun ownership is good for public safety. This is empirically wrong, as all the data show. Having a gun in your home greatly increases the chance that someone in your home will be shot and injured or killed. The myth of "home protection" propounded by the NRA on behalf of manufacturers and dealers is cynical because they know the statistics, too. I had a friend killed at age 16 in one of these accidents, and have spent the many years since paying attention to research on such deaths. It is an appalling toll. In the first half of 2015 alone:
27,931 reported instances of violence involving guns 14,398 gun-induced injuries 7,171 gun-induced deaths 1,828 children killed or injured by guns link
In just six months. Why do we put up with this? No other country is this stupid.
I am just like you in that nothing drives me crazier than stories like this. However I just wonder if we aren't trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater by eliminating gun ownership. Clearly this gun owner was grossly irresponsible with it - guns should be stored in a safe, ESPECIALLY if you have kids. I know people don't like the car analogy but the government has mandated things that have greatly improved car safety, things like air bags, seat belts, rear facing cameras, etc instead of just taking cars away because they could be dangerous. I'd like to see similar mandates for guns. I know the NRA is a roadblock to anything that makes sense regarding gun regulations but until lobbying is outlawed, or at least curbed back to what it was supposed to be, they are going to oppose anything whether its regulations or taking the right away. I think the power the NRA has over this issue is wrong and I'd definitely like to see that fixed.
At the end of the day, on a fundamental level I would personally rather see personal responsibility and accountability be required with gun ownership - training before obtaining a license, license before buying a gun, proof of gun safe, prosecution in cases like this, etc. - than a governing body making a unilateral decision to take a right away. That said, since I have no interest in ever owning a gun taking ownership away would be no skin off my nose.
On another related note, I saw this story today about 13 people shot, 2 fatally, in Chicago in the past 24 hours or so. I always wonder why stuff like this is never brought into the gun debate...
www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/13-shot-2-fatally-in-chicago-since-monday/ar-BBlQlR4?ocid=HPCDHP
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Aug 18, 2015 15:56:01 GMT -5
I am just like you in that nothing drives me crazier than stories like this. However I just wonder if we aren't trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater by eliminating gun ownership. Clearly this gun owner was grossly irresponsible with it - guns should be stored in a safe, ESPECIALLY if you have kids. I know people don't like the car analogy but the government has mandated things that have greatly improved car safety, things like air bags, seat belts, rear facing cameras, etc instead of just taking cars away because they could be dangerous. I'd like to see similar mandates for guns. I know the NRA is a roadblock to anything that makes sense regarding gun regulations but until lobbying is outlawed, or at least curbed back to what it was supposed to be, they are going to oppose anything whether its regulations or taking the right away. I think the power the NRA has over this issue is wrong and I'd definitely like to see that fixed.
At the end of the day, on a fundamental level I would personally rather see personal responsibility and accountability be required with gun ownership - training before obtaining a license, license before buying a gun, proof of gun safe, prosecution in cases like this, etc. - than a governing body making a unilateral decision to take a right away. That said, since I have no interest in ever owning a gun taking ownership away would be no skin off my nose.
On another related note, I saw this story today about 13 people shot, 2 fatally, in Chicago in the past 24 hours or so. I always wonder why stuff like this is never brought into the gun debate...
www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/13-shot-2-fatally-in-chicago-since-monday/ar-BBlQlR4?ocid=HPCDHP
First of all, no one is talking about "eliminating gun ownership." That's just a bogeyman used by the NRA to scare gun owners.
Second, what most of us want is for government to treat guns more or less like autos. You know who opposes that? Right: the NRA. Look what happened when gun shops in CA and MD tried to sell pistols with safety devices that would prevent anyone but the owner from firing them (such as the kid who killed his sister, above). The NRA organized a boycott of both stores, and threatened the same against any other store that offered such weapons for sale.
Third, where have you been hiding? The gun violence in Chicago has been reported and discussed over and over again. I personally have asked why the four or five suburban gun shops that are known to be the source of nearly half the illegally-owned guns used in Chicago killings are allowed to stay in business (rhetorical question: those white suburbs couldn't care less about black kids getting killed in the city).
|
|
|
Post by jon on Aug 19, 2015 16:41:02 GMT -5
"Did ATF enforce illegal possession of firearms under Bush?" Irrelevant, as per the usual leftist attempt to create a false moral equivalence. But, since you raise the irrelevant defense, ....no, while the Bush ATF was a little better than Obama (and IIRC so was Clinton) it also failed to enforce the law for the same PC reasons----it would have just increased the obvious spectacle. Young Black males commit all crimes---including gun crimes---at a far, far higher rate than any other demographic. "The gun violence in Chicago has been reported and discussed over and over again." No. totally false if you compare it to press coverage of the rare cases where a White person shoots someone. Simply a lie. "On another related note, I saw this story today about 13 people shot, 2 fatally, in Chicago in the past 24 hours or so. I always wonder why stuff like this is never brought into the gun debate..." Duh? ? Maybe because all the shooters are Black, and none of the guns were acquired in compliance with existing controls hence additional restrictions would have no impact at all short of total ban and probably not even that, and it's not PC to focus on that? Hard to comprehend?
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Aug 19, 2015 23:51:35 GMT -5
"Did ATF enforce illegal possession of firearms under Bush?" Irrelevant, as per the usual leftist attempt to create a false moral equivalence. But, since you raise the irrelevant defense, ....no, while the Bush ATF was a little better than Obama (and IIRC so was Clinton) it also failed to enforce the law for the same PC reasons----it would have just increased the obvious spectacle. Young Black males commit all crimes---including gun crimes---at a far, far higher rate than any other demographic. "The gun violence in Chicago has been reported and discussed over and over again." No. totally false if you compare it to press coverage of the rare cases where a White person shoots someone. Simply a lie. "On another related note, I saw this story today about 13 people shot, 2 fatally, in Chicago in the past 24 hours or so. I always wonder why stuff like this is never brought into the gun debate..." Duh????? Maybe because all the shooters are Black, and none of the guns were acquired in compliance with existing controls hence additional restrictions would have no impact at all short of total ban and probably not even that, and it's not PC to focus on that? Hard to comprehend?
We get it jon: Black people gonna kill black people, nothing white guys selling the black guys guns can do about it, so they might as well make income off it. Dead kids just collateral damage, but a lot of them are black, so really who cares? Gotcha!
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Aug 20, 2015 0:08:03 GMT -5
It appears that a two-year-old accidentally shot his father in the head and killed him Tuesday, police in Alabama said...A semiautomatic handgun, which police believe [the father] owned, was found in the apartment. "We don’t know where the child found the gun," [Police Capt. Gregg] Rector said. “People find it hard to believe that a two-and-a-half-year-old is physically capable of firing a handgun,” Rector said. “Sadly, I found numerous examples. It’s not unheard of.”
It’s unclear how many children unintentionally kill people with guns in the United States each year, as The Post has previously reported. “We know how many times children die each year as a result of gun deaths,” Jon S. Vernick, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, told The Post last year. “We don’t know how many times children pull the trigger and someone dies.” link
NOTE: 1,088 children 18 years old or younger were killed by gunfire in 2013 (latest data available).
|
|
|
Post by brisco0317 on Aug 20, 2015 7:22:55 GMT -5
It appears that a two-year-old accidentally shot his father in the head and killed him Tuesday, police in Alabama said...A semiautomatic handgun, which police believe [the father] owned, was found in the apartment. "We don’t know where the child found the gun," [Police Capt. Gregg] Rector said. “People find it hard to believe that a two-and-a-half-year-old is physically capable of firing a handgun,” Rector said. “Sadly, I found numerous examples. It’s not unheard of.”
It’s unclear how many children unintentionally kill people with guns in the United States each year, as The Post has previously reported. “We know how many times children die each year as a result of gun deaths,” Jon S. Vernick, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, told The Post last year. “We don’t know how many times children pull the trigger and someone dies.” link
NOTE: 1,088 children 18 years old or younger were killed by gunfire in 2013 (latest data available).
Just sad. Guns should be no where near kids.
|
|
|
Post by brisco0317 on Aug 20, 2015 12:03:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jon on Aug 22, 2015 7:43:14 GMT -5
|
|