America, shooting, again??

[unrepentant]

Jimbeaux said:

AJL308 said:

unrepentant said:

That's not quite true though. Federally licensed gun dealers are required to do background checks. Many dealers at gun shows are not federally licensed and do not do background checks. It's also nonsensical that private sales should be excluded from any kind of checks. The California law makes sense and should maybe become the model.

The other thing that makes no sense is the idea of a permit for life. In many states you get a permit at 18 and never have to renew. That's ludicrous. You are required to renew your drivers license periodically but not your firearms permit permit? I would have thought they should be renewed every 5 years at minimum.

Anyone selling firearms for commercial purposes is required to be an FFL. If people are doing so at gun shows and are not registered they are breaking the law. Gun shows are actually fairly closely checked by ATF officers. In fact I think it was becoming increasingly onerous on private sellers are they were continually being asked to prove that they were not selling for business purposes.

If this is correct then good. I do not attend gun shows nor do I keep up with the legal specifics surrounding them. Thanks.

It's not true.

[Pesty]

https://gma.yahoo.com/orlando-shooter-turned-away-...

The owner of a Florida gun store said Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen tried to buy body armor and bulk ammunition from his store just a few weeks before the shooting but his staff turned him away.

"We knew by the questions he was asking he was suspicious," Robert Abell, a co-owner of Lotus Gunworks in Jensen Beach, Florida, told ABC News.


If this bits True?

an alert salesperson refused to sell to Mateen, and Abell said he contacted authorities about Mateen before the massacre. The local sheriff's office said it was unaware of the incident at the gun store, and other local authorities, including the local FBI office, have not responded to ABC News' requests for comment.

The FBI is aware of and is investigating Mateen's visit to Lotus, officials said.

[Jimbeaux]

unrepentant said:

Jimbeaux said:

AJL308 said:

unrepentant said:

That's not quite true though. Federally licensed gun dealers are required to do background checks. Many dealers at gun shows are not federally licensed and do not do background checks. It's also nonsensical that private sales should be excluded from any kind of checks. The California law makes sense and should maybe become the model.

The other thing that makes no sense is the idea of a permit for life. In many states you get a permit at 18 and never have to renew. That's ludicrous. You are required to renew your drivers license periodically but not your firearms permit permit? I would have thought they should be renewed every 5 years at minimum.

Anyone selling firearms for commercial purposes is required to be an FFL. If people are doing so at gun shows and are not registered they are breaking the law. Gun shows are actually fairly closely checked by ATF officers. In fact I think it was becoming increasingly onerous on private sellers are they were continually being asked to prove that they were not selling for business purposes.

If this is correct then good. I do not attend gun shows nor do I keep up with the legal specifics surrounding them. Thanks.

It's not true.

Even if it were, there is just too many ways to loophole/ slip through this. Rules may exist, it is down to how well they can/are enforced.

[Countdown]

rscott said:

I thought Trump was against more gun control and better background checks? Or has he flip flopped on that one too ?

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/news/a59375/d...

Trump's MO seems to be to make a policy statement and then see if his popularity rating goes up or down. If it goes up he makes a more extreme statement and he keeps going until he's milked it for as much as he can. If, on the other hand, the stupid policy loses him votes, he backtracks. The policy on punishing women for having abortionss one prime example. he's made similar backtracks in other areas such as torture, support for the Iraq and afghan wars etc. he even used to be a fan of Hillary Clinton.

[Jimbeaux]

Countdown said:

rscott said:

I thought Trump was against more gun control and better background checks? Or has he flip flopped on that one too ?

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/news/a59375/d...

Trump's MO seems to be to make a policy statement and then see if his popularity rating goes up or down. If it goes up he makes a more extreme statement and he keeps going until he's milked it for as much as he can. If, on the other hand, the stupid policy loses him votes, he backtracks. The policy on punishing women for having abortionss one prime example. he's made similar backtracks in other areas such as torture, support for the Iraq and afghan wars etc. he even used to be a fan of Hillary Clinton.

He claims to have been her friend. He also claims he donated large sums of money for political favors. She was at his wedding. As to woman's rights, she has taken over 25 million Dollars from nations who institutionally execute homosexuals and subjugate women. Trump had women at very top management levels in his company all the way back in the 1980s. I submit that her rhetoric about her support for women and his "war" on them is just that, rhetoric. That said, he sure has changed positions, as has she, such as dancing quickly to the left after being surprised by Sanders' ascension. Trump and Clinton are both politicians now and are equally subject to lying and being corrupt. None are clean.

[Beati Dogu]

5ohmustang said:

rohrl said:

The intersex and transsexual people affected by laws like North Carolina's transgender bathroom law care, obviously.

Forcing someone who has had all the relevant surgery and has lived as a woman for thirty years to use the men's toilets is just completely illogical.

It's simple really.

Penis=Male Bathroom
Vagina=Female Bathroom

[Jimbeaux]

5ohmustang said:

Jimbeaux said:

The hardcore preppers as in the reality show types? Yes, nutjobs. Although TBH, they are not really that dangerous overall, just hoarders of all sorts of unnecessary crap. The real danger is still in the everyday street thug that kills somebody somewhere everyday un goes largely unnoticed.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Thursday 16th June 16:24

As I said in the prepping thread. Doomsday preppers is not the reality. The staff that work with nat geo that would interview and film those "preppers" would not air the regular people they had filmed. They would send their staff multiple times to the same preppers, trying to squeeze the most craziest crap to put on tv, to make it entertainment worthy.

I have personally met the casting crew of Doomsday Preppers at an expo in Denver. Their questions were loaded to find the most entertaining and retarded content they could put out.


Watching a can of beans on tv is hardly exciting.

This is reasonable to assume. I know that the preparations the coastal states take for hurricanes and other disasters seem extreme to some from other regions. It is all relative.

[Mario149]

Jimbeaux said:

Mario149 said:

Jimbeaux said:

I am not in line with those who advocate zero guns. While that is unconstitutional, the main reason is that then only the thugs or terrorists will have them. I am in favor of more stringent background checks. There needs to be background checks at gun shows, I think not having checks at shows is stupid. I believe those on a (name the crime) watch list should not be allowed to buy a gun. Now, there needs to be a due process and better management of said lists so they are accurate, both stopping criminals from falling through the cracks or, on the other extreme, some government worker expressing their opinion by adding someone to it without cause. Lastly, reform of the medical privacy laws regarding diagnosed mental patients' information if purchasing guns.

Forgetting the legal implications (or not) of the constitution for a moment, and apologies if you've answered this before, but in terms of people being able to own firearms in the US (and using concealed carry terminology but in the context of all gun ownership), do you think that a "may issue" licensing or "shall issue" licensing would be better and why? On the assumption you favour everyone having to be licensed at all.

Concealed carry, as opposed to open carry, should all require permitting IMO. I favor the "Shall issue" with very stringent background checks along with the current class and testing requirements.I understand some thinking that "may issue" is better because one should demonstrate a valid reason for needing one, such as they transport cash between banks or they have been threatened, etc. However, one does not know any and all potential criminal encounters; therefore, should be allowed a "shall issue" pending checks and successful course completion. All IMO.

Interesting, thanks.

[johnfm]

Isn't it apparent that Americans are the problem, and not the guns?

Sure, their gun laws are irresponsible.

But since there are other countries where the citizens have rights to arms (but don't have eye watering shooting stats) the only conclusion to draw is that Americans have ingrained homocidal tendencies and guns happen to expedite their craving to kill.

If guns were banned they'd find other ways to kill people for running a red light, or performing abortions, or eating the last French fry.

It is a personal tragedy for the victims and their families and a sad indictment on America - but I'm not convinced that there is such a simple solution as restricting gun ownership. In any event, Americans will never ever reduce the ease with which they can buy automatic assault weapons.

[anonymous-user]

5ohmustang said:

It's simple really.

Penis=Male Bathroom
Vagina=Female Bathroom

So if a man decided to become a woman, had all the relevant surgery to remove his penis and turn it into a vagina you would be happy with them using the female bathroom?

If so, at least that's a step in the right direction.

[rscott]

5ohmustang said:

Jimbeaux said:

This is reasonable to assume. I know that the preparations the coastal states take for hurricanes and other disasters seem extreme to some from other regions. It is all relative.

Right, absolutely. The show became popular as it began before the false economic recovery and the nonsense of the 2012 Mayan doomsday prophecy. So naturally there was an appetite for this kind of tv show.

It is too cringe worthy to watch. It was made to make people think wtf are these people on?

With regards to more stringent background checks, what else can possibily be done.

The democrats are either totally incompetent or down right liars. Probably both based on the false fear tactics they use, when they roll out their propaganda machine.

A local, state, fbi and mental background check is already used.

The only possible next level they can go to, is an sf86 background check which costs thousands. Which they know.

It is a cloaked all out gun ban. Which will never be tolerated. If I was a concerned UK citizen, I would be more focused on the pending economic melt down than foreign affairs.

Maybe make sure all transactions actually involve a background check. Research suggests around 15% don't (that's AFTER you exclude transactions between friends/families).

[anonymous-user]

johnfm said:

If guns were banned they'd find other ways to kill people for running a red light, or performing abortions, or eating the last French fry.

True, but as has been pointed out time and time again, guns make it massively easier to kill someone, or kill many people.

If someone wants to kill you but doesn't have a gun, then you can avoid being killed just by being able to run slightly faster than they can...

Guns make it stupidly easy to kill people.

Imagine if hey guy ran into the nightclub in Orlando with a big knife instead of a gun. How many people do you think he would have managed to kill? One? Two? None?

[Willy Nilly]

5ohmustang said:

It's simple really.

Penis=Male Bathroom
Vagina=Female Bathroom

Do you and your wife have separate bathrooms at home? I'm not even sure why we need to have gender specific toilets at all.

[Willy Nilly]

johnfm said:

If guns were banned they'd find other ways to kill people for running a red light, or performing abortions, or eating the last French fry.

What guns do is allow a lot of killings by one person in a very short time frame. If the gunman had gone into that nightclub armed with a baseball bat he would have soon been over powered, as it was he had a gun and was able to kill many people just by firing bullets into the crowd.

The USA has a lot of adolescent mannerisms and guns and the attitude toward them is one of them. Where a teenager would go into a fit of rage and start hitting people if they were wronged and older person would (generally speaking) take a more pragmatic approach. It's common sense that gun shops aren't subject to armed robberies, but widespread and largely unregulated gun ownership doesn't and isn't reducing crime. There are no light sabre related crimes because there are no light sabres.

[rohrl]

5ohmustang said:

rohrl said:

The intersex and transsexual people affected by laws like North Carolina's transgender bathroom law care, obviously.

Forcing someone who has had all the relevant surgery and has lived as a woman for thirty years to use the men's toilets is just completely illogical.

It's simple really.

Penis=Male Bathroom
Vagina=Female Bathroom

The legislation passed in NC does not say that at all. It says that you have to use the facilities which align with your sex as defined on your birth certificate, so as I said a post-op man-to-woman transsexual has to use the mens toilet. This is why people are protesting.

[Countdown]

Willy Nilly said:

5ohmustang said:

It's simple really.

Penis=Male Bathroom
Vagina=Female Bathroom

Do you and your wife have separate bathrooms at home? I'm not even sure why we need to have gender specific toilets at all.

In more and more workplaces (IME) they aren't gender specific. However they tend to be Toilet/washbasin all in one room, rather than having a row of cubicles and then a row of sinks (if you see what I mean).

[scherzkeks]

johnfm said:

Isn't it apparent that Americans are the problem, and not the guns?

Sadly, for many it is not. The simple answer is "ban guns," the complex answer is that American society is violent, overly materialistic, self-centered, and without any real cultural values (other than hustling) or spiritual center.

In 100 years or so, that might change, but only after a giant cultural reset has occured.

[Jimbeaux]

johnfm said:

Isn't it apparent that Americans are the problem, and not the guns?

Sure, their gun laws are irresponsible.

But since there are other countries where the citizens have rights to arms (but don't have eye watering shooting stats) the only conclusion to draw is that Americans have ingrained homocidal tendencies and guns happen to expedite their craving to kill.

If guns were banned they'd find other ways to kill people for running a red light, or performing abortions, or eating the last French fry.

It is a personal tragedy for the victims and their families and a sad indictment on America - but I'm not convinced that there is such a simple solution as restricting gun ownership. In any event, Americans will never ever reduce the ease with which they can buy automatic assault weapons.

"Automatic assault" rifles are extremely rare. Perhaps you refer to "semi-automatic rifles", as the term "assault" is also inaccurate. Just being picky.

[Jimbeaux]

NinjaPower said:

5ohmustang said:

It's simple really.

Penis=Male Bathroom
Vagina=Female Bathroom

So if a man decided to become a woman, had all the relevant surgery to remove his penis and turn it into a vagina you would be happy with them using the female bathroom?

If so, at least that's a step in the right direction.

I think most would be fine with that, who would even know the difference? Again, the problem here is a push to allow those who "identify" as another sex while sporting the wrong equipment to hang out in the opposite restroom.

[Jimbeaux]

Willy Nilly said:

5ohmustang said:

It's simple really.

Penis=Male Bathroom
Vagina=Female Bathroom

Do you and your wife have separate bathrooms at home? I'm not even sure why we need to have gender specific toilets at all.

Key word there is "Wife".