30 people shot in Midland Texas| here we go again

[Spurs Homer]

So which shootings would have been prevented by what you proposed, since these guns were purchased legally? You didn't answer the question.

Let's see...

any shooting where a stolen gun was used - that is a bunch - the trigger would not fire the gun


countless saved right there

[Spurtacular]

They wouldn't necessary have to see him as a bona fide threat. Just a potential threat to himself or others after making those calls.

A potential threat is a threat.

Anyways, you at least tried for a change; so, no need to beat you up about your failure.

[Pavlov]

A potential threat is a threat.

Nope.

[Reck]

Nope.

Derp been watching Minority Report.

[spurraider21]

Derp been watching Minority Report.

[DMC]

i'm always here to discuss. glad to see you are as well, for a change.

court response wouldn't really be part of the equation, though, with respect to a cons utional amendment. courts get involved when a law violates the cons ution (ie if congress passed a confiscation law tomorrow, without first amending the cons ution). if you amend the cons ution to no longer protect gun ownership, then courts would have no say with respect to confiscation.

so are you a proponent of repealing 2A?

I cannot personally amend the BoR.

You didn't respond.

[spurraider21]

I cannot personally amend the BoR.

You didn't respond.

DMSemantics looking to avoid actual discussion, of course

In any event, here: https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/sho...=1#post9919710

so are you a proponent of repealing 2A? Not just as some exercise to see how courts or somebody of government reacts. Do you actually favor a 2A repeal if it was on the table?

[DMC]

You'd know you have better communication when the officer pulling over the guy who called both the police and the FBI knows the guy he pulled over called the police and the FBI.

Pretty simple stuff.

In which instance? Are you saying that never happens now?

So if in one single instance, a cop pulls someone over and sees they have called into the police and FBI, that means communication has reached the level you're referring to and things should be better now?

[DMC]

DMSemantics looking to avoid actual discussion, of course

In any event, here: https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/sho...=1#post9919710

so are you a proponent of repealing 2A? Not just as some exercise to see how courts or somebody of government reacts. Do you actually favor a 2A repeal if it was on the table?

I gave my take already multiple times. I asked for yours. You've yet to respond and keep asking about my take. I will not be pawed at. This isn't an interview. If you want dialogue, quid pro quo. How would you address mass shootings, not just your take on 2A.

[DMC]

Let's see...

any shooting where a stolen gun was used - that is a bunch - the trigger would not fire the gun


countless saved right there

This is about mass shootings. If you want to talk about Chicago you'll need to find another thread.

[DMC]

What gun laws, existing or theoretical, would have prevented this?

biometric weapons

make every gun sold a biometric /fingerprint trigger gun

Offer to retrofit every gun in america

if owner refuses - he loses the gun period.

at one time - people swore they would never be forced to have seatbelts installed in their cars

but they had to comply and they did

it saved lives

2nd amendment would still be intact because no ones guns would be illegally confiscated

the gun owner would simply have to apply, submit his fingerprints, pass background checks and obey gun laws/rules to keep his gun rights

if he could not or would not comply - then it was HE - that forfeited his gun rights - not the govt/law

1st, don't confuse legality with cons utionality. USSC case law exists that clearly shows the BoR isn't slaved to laws, but the other way around.

2nd, which shooter illegally possessed a firearm?

it depends...

if all the shooters submitted their fingerprints and successfully passed all background checks, probably none were illegal

but lives would still be saved because all gun murders would be solvable crimes as every shooter would be a registered fingerprint

lives would still be saved

but you are probably right that this may not have prevented most shootings

i would hope that it would prevent future shootings just by the stringent rules enacted to comply

Pretty sure the shootings in El Paso and in Odessa were solvable crimes.

Are you just trolling now? How does what you proposed do anything to change the outcomes of the mass shootings?

nah

can't change past shootings - I was just honestly trying to answer your last question re: which shootings would have been prevented


but seriously - who gives a about that - the past is past -


as far as future shootings - having biometric/fingerprint trigger - weapons is the only way to change what is happening and will continue to happen in the future


the technology is available on smart phones and there is a $$$ fortune to be made in making smart guns the ONLY available guns in the future

If this doesn't tell everyone reading to completely discount anything you say, nothing will.

[spurraider21]

I gave my take already multiple times. I asked for yours. You've yet to respond and keep asking about my take. I will not be pawed at. This isn't an interview. If you want dialogue, quid pro quo. How would you address mass shootings, not just your take on 2A.

i linked you to a post where i discuss what i want done with respect to gun regulation.

why are you unable to answer whether or not you want 2A to be repealed? you said you think it "should be proposed" so that you can see how courts would react to it. you haven't answered if your position is that 2A should be repealed. is that what you'd want to happen?

[Thread]

i linked you to a post where i discuss what i want done with respect to gun regulation.

why are you unable to answer whether or not you want 2A to be repealed? you said you think it "should be proposed" so that you can see how courts would react to it. you haven't answered if your position is that 2A should be repealed. is that what you'd want to happen?

& don't paw at me neither, 21!!!

[DMC]

i linked you to a post where i discuss what i want done with respect to gun regulation.

why are you unable to answer whether or not you want 2A to be repealed? you said you think it "should be proposed" so that you can see how courts would react to it. you haven't answered if your position is that 2A should be repealed. is that what you'd want to happen?

So you think a buyback program is the solution to mass shootings, as if people in love with guns would jump at the chance to sell one back?

What does "mandatory buyback" mean?

[DMC]

& don't paw at me neither, 21!!!

My Hungarian devil

[spurraider21]

So you think a buyback program is the solution to mass shootings, as if people in love with guns would jump at the chance to sell one back?

What does "mandatory buyback" mean?

i misspoke. i'm in favor of a voluntary buyback, combined with regulations limiting (or fully eliminating) further manufacturing/import of those types of weapons. i've said that a few times here before.

a mandatory buyback would be akin to confiscation of those weapons, with the government having to pay owners fair market value.

i dont think the approach to curtailing mass shootings has to be myopic and only focus on guns either.

[DMC]

i misspoke. i'm in favor of a voluntary buyback, combined with regulations limiting (or fully eliminating) further manufacturing/import of those types of weapons. i've said that a few times here before.

a mandatory buyback would be akin to confiscation of those weapons, with the government having to pay owners fair market value.

i dont think the approach to curtailing mass shootings has to be myopic and only focus on guns either.

People who purchased firearms and paid an FFL get get one from overseas aren't that interested in selling. The buyback crowd are usually people who don't have any interest in the gun in the 1st place, and then you have the 20 dollar pressed out guns being sold back for 5x their value.

The buyback is only a first step in eradication of firearms. What you're saying to people is "if you don't want your gun, we'll take it" but you're not saying "you cannot have a gun". There are enough guns in circulation now that you won't need to manufacture any. The parts will be manufactured and people will continue to repair and upgrade theirs. The price will increase again and they will become hot items.

This cyclic approach only snowballs the problem (not the sexual term). You either have to cut out the guns or you have to arm people even more. Since you also cannot force people to carry, the only recourse the former.

Or you can address it from a single person perspective, how do I resolve the issue for ME? Which is what license to carry is about. It doesn't fix mass shootings, and might not save my own life, but it beats being unarmed when the nutjob isn't.

[spurraider21]

People who purchased firearms and paid an FFL get get one from overseas aren't that interested in selling. The buyback crowd are usually people who don't have any interest in the gun in the 1st place, and then you have the 20 dollar pressed out guns being sold back for 5x their value.

The buyback is only a first step in eradication of firearms. What you're saying to people is "if you don't want your gun, we'll take it" but you're not saying "you cannot have a gun". There are enough guns in circulation now that you won't need to manufacture any. The parts will be manufactured and people will continue to repair and upgrade theirs. The price will increase again and they will become hot items.

This cyclic approach only snowballs the problem (not the sexual term). You either have to cut out the guns or you have to arm people even more. Since you also cannot force people to carry, the only recourse the former.

Or you can address it from a single person perspective, how do I resolve the issue for ME? Which is what license to carry is about. It doesn't fix mass shootings, and might not save my own life, but it beats being unarmed when the nutjob isn't.

a voluntary buyback would certainly be a lot slower than a mandatory one. but i do believe there are legitimate 2A concerns with a mandatory buyback. the idea is a voluntary buyback would be slower, but still moving toward the desired goal (reduction of those types of guns in circulation). by simultaneously cutting off the supply (by ending manufacture/import of those weapons), you have a 2 pronged approach to reducing the amount in circulation. if this is combined with much more regulation on private sales, i think you still get to a better point than we are now.

[Spurs Homer]

This is about mass shootings. If you want to talk about Chicago you'll need to find another thread.

Look over these stats and then try and think if these could be cut down by making all guns biometric;


https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-america/



Not sure anyone would take anything you say seriously - if you refute this. But you will.

and

no one takes you seriously already....

[Pavlov]

In which instance? Are you saying that never happens now?

So if in one single instance, a cop pulls someone over and sees they have called into the police and FBI, that means communication has reached the level you're referring to and things should be better now?

Probably would've been better in Odessa and you could wait another week before doing your backflips in threads like these.

[DMC]

Look over these stats and then try and think if these could be cut down by making all guns biometric;


https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-america/



Not sure anyone would take anything you say seriously - if you refute this. But you will.

and

no one takes you seriously already....

Has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked you. You ing idiot.

[DMC]

Probably would've been better in Odessa and you could wait another week before doing your backflips in threads like these.

You ask all these questions but when someone poses a real question to you you fold up like a cheap lawn chair.

[DMC]

a voluntary buyback would certainly be a lot slower than a mandatory one. but i do believe there are legitimate 2A concerns with a mandatory buyback. the idea is a voluntary buyback would be slower, but still moving toward the desired goal (reduction of those types of guns in circulation). by simultaneously cutting off the supply (by ending manufacture/import of those weapons), you have a 2 pronged approach to reducing the amount in circulation. if this is combined with much more regulation on private sales, i think you still get to a better point than we are now.

But that's an arbitrary point. Any arbitrary point has to have a reference and you would have no reference. You have to wait years to see if mass shootings decreased because the people who have the ability to do that now would still have the ability to do that then. So maybe if we just nicely asked the mass shooters to turn in their guns they would stop mass shooting people. I think that's the solution.

I mean why doesnt the law just go arrest mass shooters before they do the shooting?

[Pavlov]

You ask all these questions but when someone poses a real question to you you fold up like a cheap lawn chair.

I answered.

You're just afraid of anything approaching a real discussion. You got called out on your stupid ban everything bluff and you've been ting yourself ever since.

You don't think anything could have gone differently in Odessa had the cop known about the shooter's calls?

[spurraider21]

But that's an arbitrary point. Any arbitrary point has to have a reference and you would have no reference. You have to wait years to see if mass shootings decreased because the people who have the ability to do that now would still have the ability to do that then. So maybe if we just nicely asked the mass shooters to turn in their guns they would stop mass shooting people. I think that's the solution.

I mean why doesnt the law just go arrest mass shooters before they do the shooting?

i dont think you can go full minority report and arrest people before they do stuff. sometimes there are clear red flags and mental health flags that can help you be proactive. but otherwise, in addition to whatever measures we can take to allow ease of access to mental health, we should simultaneously combat the ease of access to these sorts of weapons that make mass murder so much more practical and easy for them.

i dont think the mass murderer is likely to turn in his weapon. but the guy who privately sold it to him might otherwise have sold it to the government who pays full market value (heck, maybe we make the buyback 1.5x market value to further incentivize it). decrease the amount of guns in circulation, chip away at the ease of access to guns. you'll still have the nuts on the street, but less of them will be able to acquire guns in ways that cir vent mental health screening