+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: Members (/forum-401.html)
+----- Forum: Rice (/forum-444.html)
+------ Forum: Kent Rowald Memorial Quad (/forum-660.html)
+------ Thread: Mass shootings/gun control (/thread-880198.html)
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - RiceLad15 - 09-01-2019 04:34 PM
Oregon has used a red-flag law to seize weapons from a former Marine.
Quote:“If antifa gets to the point where they start killing us, I’m going to kill them next,” Kohfield, 32, said. “I’d slaughter them and I have a detailed plan on how I would wipe out antifa.”
That threat pushed the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task to take a series of extraordinary steps against Kohfield, including temporary seizure of a cache of his firearms under Oregon’s new “red flag” law aimed at preventing gun violence, The Oregonian/OregonLive has learned...
Kohfield, who spoke with The Oregonian/OregonLive, suffers from bipolar disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder, medical records show.
He returned home Tuesday from the VA hospital and maintains he never planned to hurt or maim other people. But he understands why he alarmed police.
“I looked unhinged. I looked dangerous and have the training to be dangerous,” said Kohfield, who lives with his father in Canby and receives disability payments for physical and psychological injuries he sustained during two tours of duty in Iraq...
Kohfield told Crenshaw that Congress needed to take immediate steps to declare antifa a terrorist organization. Otherwise, he and other veterans would have no choice but to begin systematically killing antifa members “until we have achieved genocide.”
Kohfield included a detailed outline of how he would carry out the mission, which he argued would be legally justified if the federal government refused to act.
The U.S. Capitol Police shared the letter with the FBI’s Portland office, which assigned the case to a Clackamas County sheriff’s deputy serving on the area’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, court records show.
https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2019/08/an-ex-marine-said-hed-slaughter-antifa-the-fbi-using-oregons-new-red-flag-law-took-his-guns-away.html
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - tanqtonic - 09-01-2019 04:39 PM
(09-01-2019 03:11 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:(09-01-2019 09:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(09-01-2019 06:56 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: Here's one more proposal for you, but this is from a right-wing consultant. His main three proposals are upgrading the NICS program, the 'Red Flag' program, and just condemning all groups that use political rhetoric to justify violence.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-08-27/republicans-guns-trump-congress-red-flags
I honestly don't care what is done (although I would prefer we start with stricter background checks). I just want something to be done.
Is there even one single mass shooter who would have been stopped by stricter background checks? Names, please. To the best of my memory, every single one of them either passed or got their guns illegally. I expect this shooter will fit into one of those categories. We could have the FBI do a background check similar to the one done in granting security clearance. Which shooter(s) would that have stiopped?
I am in agreement with red flag laws.
I am in agreement with condemning those who preach violence. On both sides, not just one, as leftists do.
Possibly yesterday's too. I just read on CNN that the shooter yesterday was previously arrested in 2001 for criminal trespass and evading arrest, both of which are misdemeanors, according to public records. Adjudication was deferred, though the details of the case were not immediately available.
His record also includes a 2018 traffic citation for a federal motor-carrier safety violation, according to court records in Ector County, Texas.
Would either of those preclude him from being able to buy a new gun?
They would not.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - OptimisticOwl - 09-01-2019 05:19 PM
(09-01-2019 04:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:(09-01-2019 03:11 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:(09-01-2019 09:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(09-01-2019 06:56 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: Here's one more proposal for you, but this is from a right-wing consultant. His main three proposals are upgrading the NICS program, the 'Red Flag' program, and just condemning all groups that use political rhetoric to justify violence.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-08-27/republicans-guns-trump-congress-red-flags
I honestly don't care what is done (although I would prefer we start with stricter background checks). I just want something to be done.
Is there even one single mass shooter who would have been stopped by stricter background checks? Names, please. To the best of my memory, every single one of them either passed or got their guns illegally. I expect this shooter will fit into one of those categories. We could have the FBI do a background check similar to the one done in granting security clearance. Which shooter(s) would that have stiopped?
I am in agreement with red flag laws.
I am in agreement with condemning those who preach violence. On both sides, not just one, as leftists do.
Possibly yesterday's too. I just read on CNN that the shooter yesterday was previously arrested in 2001 for criminal trespass and evading arrest, both of which are misdemeanors, according to public records. Adjudication was deferred, though the details of the case were not immediately available.
His record also includes a 2018 traffic citation for a federal motor-carrier safety violation, according to court records in Ector County, Texas.
Would either of those preclude him from being able to buy a new gun?
They would not.
Criminal trespass (18 years ago)
Evading arrest
Motor Carrier safety violation ( his taillights weren't working, or what?)
Are any of these red flags for a future shootout? Are we to define everybody who has a traffic ticket as unfit to own a gun? I don't know what current background checks look for. I assume felonies and DV. What else should be included?
You mentioned "stricter" background checks. What are current background checks missing that stricter ones will catch?
Did he use a "new" gun?
I am OK with greater surveillance of social media especially dark net.
So far I have agreed with everything you have suggested except the vague "stricter" or "expanded" background checks. maybe I am just not enough of the "sky is falling" type to be a leftist.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - Fort Bend Owl - 09-01-2019 05:33 PM
The local congressman out in Odessa/Midland said that he failed a background check. He didn't say why so perhaps there was something else on his record.
ETA - in terms of 'stricter' or 'expanded' background checks, the so-called 'gun show loophole' is a good place to start. I'll be curious to see where yesterday's shooter got his AR-15. About half of our states have background checks in place for private sales, but not Texas.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - tanqtonic - 09-01-2019 05:47 PM
The EP shooter bought his rifle through an FFL holder and passed the checks.
What more do you wish? To be blunt you have already opined that you are for the removal of all firearms. Do you understand why any suggestion you make doesnt seem honest?
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - RiceLad15 - 09-01-2019 05:52 PM
(09-01-2019 05:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: The EP shooter bought his rifle through an FFL holder and passed the checks.
What more do you wish? To be blunt you have already opined that you are for the removal of all firearms. Do you understand why any suggestion you make doesnt seem honest?
What a good example of why compromise in the political process seems dead.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - Fort Bend Owl - 09-01-2019 06:03 PM
(09-01-2019 05:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: The EP shooter bought his rifle through an FFL holder and passed the checks.
What more do you wish? To be blunt you have already opined that you are for the removal of all firearms. Do you understand why any suggestion you make doesnt seem honest?
That's my personal wish (removal of all firearms), but I know it ain't happening. So yes, the suggestions I make (really they're just copied from other politicians' blueprints/policies and not my personal suggestions, but you should know that) are honest. They're (in my opinion) some of the more reasonable compromises we can make to enact some changes.
To make a sports analogy, we have some posters here who are very much in favor of the removal of football (or at least a drop down to DIII). But they probably realize that's not likely to happen either, so they are more than willing to make suggestions on personnel moves, or coaching decisions during a game. Do you think they're being dishonest by doing that?
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - OptimisticOwl - 09-01-2019 06:14 PM
(09-01-2019 06:03 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: That's my personal wish (removal of all firearms), but I know it ain't happening.
Nor should it happen.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - Hambone10 - 09-01-2019 07:29 PM
(09-01-2019 05:33 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: The local congressman out in Odessa/Midland said that he failed a background check. He didn't say why so perhaps there was something else on his record.
ETA - in terms of 'stricter' or 'expanded' background checks, the so-called 'gun show loophole' is a good place to start. I'll be curious to see where yesterday's shooter got his AR-15. About half of our states have background checks in place for private sales, but not Texas.
Have you ever been to a gun show and seen one of these so-called loopholes?
They aren't what they are described to be. The ATF is all over those events.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - Fort Bend Owl - 09-01-2019 07:34 PM
I'm not on board with Elizabeth Warren per-se, because I think some of her plans are a bit much (even for me). But she has a quote in her gun control policy plan that says 'Only 1% of gun dealers are responsible for 57% of guns used in crimes. My Administration will direct the ATF to prioritize oversight of dealers with serial compliance violations — and then use its authority to revoke the license of dealers who repeatedly violate the rules.'
That seems reasonable enough.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - tanqtonic - 09-01-2019 08:22 PM
(09-01-2019 06:03 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:(09-01-2019 05:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: The EP shooter bought his rifle through an FFL holder and passed the checks.
What more do you wish? To be blunt you have already opined that you are for the removal of all firearms. Do you understand why any suggestion you make doesnt seem honest?
That's my personal wish (removal of all firearms), but I know it ain't happening. So yes, the suggestions I make (really they're just copied from other politicians' blueprints/policies and not my personal suggestions, but you should know that) are honest. They're (in my opinion) some of the more reasonable compromises we can make to enact some changes.
Fair enough. But what seems problematic is that, for example, your suggestions include stuff about a 'gun show loophole'? Care to tell us what that is?
The major problem is that you are so vested in your point of view, that facts dont seem to weigh much in counter to 'juicy language'.
And truth be told, that term (along with 'assault rifle', and 'military style weapon') is garbage cover language, with zero impact on what the law is, or what happens in the real world in contrast to the emotive impact.
So yes, I find that on its face somewhat dishonest. Not trying to be a prick, just being blunt and straightforward.
I have found that 95 percent of the 'anti 2nd' people are at least this dishonest in this respect. I used to just write it off as ignorance, but truth be told, I am now more subscribed that it is intentional ignorance.
The vast majority of 'anti 2nds' have zero clue as to why 'assault rifle' and 'military style weapon' are just as good as the term "fleeberbeeber weapons", and again truth be told, they really dont give a flying fk due to the emotive impact of the words.
As to 'gun show loophole', my guess is less than one tenth of one percent know the actual regulations that accompany such transactions, and less than that have actually have any sort of real world experience purchasing a weapon at such an event. Here is some news: Out of the twenty or so weapons I have purchased at a gun show none has ever been a non-FFL transaction. Nor have I ever met a seller at a gun show that that didnt have an FFL. The important note is that anyone who has an FFL *must* report and background check any transaction -- no matter if they sell one a decade, or fifty a year. But this doesnt stop the opponents of the 2nd for the clamoring about the 'gunshow loophole', does it?
But again, the attitude amongst the anti-2nd stance doesnt seem to be really in tune with these facts; but it makes a great catch phrase. Again, a tact I find absolutely and inherently dishonest.
And no -- it isnt mere "I dont know". I will lay you dollars to donuts that at some point, even with this background (not the first time, mind you) we will hear clamoring from you at some point in the future on these phrases. It is that ingrained. If I am incorrect, then apologies in advance. But the use and depth of use of these terms by the anti-2nd folks I now simply write off as inherently dishonest.
Quote:To make a sports analogy, we have some posters here who are very much in favor of the removal of football (or at least a drop down to DIII). But they probably realize that's not likely to happen either, so they are more than willing to make suggestions on personnel moves, or coaching decisions during a game. Do you think they're being dishonest by doing that?
Or they do the 'let it die by inattention' all the while clamoring for the importance of the program. That is being dishonest.
If coming to a political 'rest point' is truly the goal on your part, then please do tell what your experiences and/or understanding of the 'gun show loophole' is, for a starting point. Or is it just a loaded term that sounds fun to toss around?
I'll be happy to talk to you about it; I have a fairly deep understanding of the actual rules, regulations, and laws in place. And done a fair bit of transactions at them.
Quote:she has a quote in her gun control policy plan that says 'Only 1% of gun dealers are responsible for 57% of guns used in crimes. My Administration will direct the ATF to prioritize oversight of dealers with serial compliance violations — and then use its authority to revoke the license of dealers who repeatedly violate the rules.'
That seems reasonable enough.
If the 1% is violating the rules, why wait for 'repeatedly'? I mean the body of rules and regulations on firearm transactions is quite fing comprehensive as it is. *If* this is a root (or leads to such issues), then why wait for 'repeated[] [violations]'?
I mean, with an FFL, I have zero issue with a zero tolerance policy. An FFL has a load of overhead already with it -- for example to obtain an FFL you have to consent to a pre-waiver of your 4th Amendment rights on searches, just for starters.
I think the better path is to identify *why* that 1% has the 57%. Sounds like a ripe as **** area, to be honest. And *if* any of that 1% has a violation, odds are that such violations not just break a rule or regulation, but an actual criminal law as well. It is pretty hard to break an FFL regulation w/o breaking a Federal criminal law at the same time.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - OptimisticOwl - 09-01-2019 10:36 PM
Nobody NEEDS a fleeberbeeber weapon.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - Owl 69/70/75 - 09-01-2019 10:46 PM
(09-01-2019 10:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: Nobody NEEDS a fleeberbeeber weapon.
Nobody NEEDS lots of things. But I don't trust my government enough to let it decide what I need or don't need--particularly if it comes with telling me that if I don't need it, I can't have it.
I'd rather take my chances with things the way they are. Our chances of getting shout a statistically very remote--something like once every 10,000 years, on average. Don't commit suicide, don't join a gang, and stay away from "gun-free" zones, and the chances are infinitesimal.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - OptimisticOwl - 09-02-2019 12:49 AM
I don't know what the gun show exception is. Maybe FBO can explain it to me.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - OptimisticOwl - 09-02-2019 12:53 AM
(09-01-2019 10:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:(09-01-2019 10:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: Nobody NEEDS a fleeberbeeber weapon.
Nobody NEEDS lots of things. But I don't trust my government enough to let it decide what I need or don't need--particularly if it comes with telling me that if I don't need it, I can't have it.
I'd rather take my chances with things the way they are. Our chances of getting shout a statistically very remote--something like once every 10,000 years, on average. Don't commit suicide, don't join a gang, and stay away from "gun-free" zones, and the chances are infinitesimal.
Truthfully, if need were the defining characteristic of what we are allowed to have, I doubt any of us would have very much. Nobody needs a 3000 sq. ft. house. Nobody needs a Cadillac. Nobody needs plastic surgery. Nobody needs a ski boat. Nobody needs expensive clothes. Nobody needs designer anything.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - tanqtonic - 09-02-2019 08:18 AM
(09-02-2019 12:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: I don't know what the gun show exception is. Maybe FBO can explain it to me.
Not an 'exception' --- LOOPHOLE. Much better loaded language.
In all honesty FBO and myself had a very nice set of PMs last night.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - OptimisticOwl - 09-02-2019 10:21 AM
(09-02-2019 08:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:(09-02-2019 12:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: I don't know what the gun show exception is. Maybe FBO can explain it to me.
Not an 'exception' --- LOOPHOLE. Much better loaded language.
In all honesty FBO and myself had a very nice set of PMs last night.
You and FBO have PMS?
Explains some things.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - Fort Bend Owl - 09-02-2019 10:30 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole
This was the extent of my research.
According to Cosmopolitan, men can't get PMS but we can get IMS (Irritable Male Syndrome). I might be guilty of that.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - OptimisticOwl - 09-02-2019 10:35 AM
(09-02-2019 10:30 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: According to Cosmopolitan, men can't get PMS but we can get IMS (Irritable Male Syndrome). I might be guilty of that.
Is that anything like Angry Old men syndrome? I have been accused of that.
You read Cosmo? This just gets worser and worser.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - Fort Bend Owl - 09-02-2019 10:43 AM
No I don't read Cosmo. That's where Google led me. Give me some credit please.