did they arrest the gun yet?

[Jim in CT]

Can ANY of the left-leaning folks here, share a theoretical gun law, which would likely have prevented this cop killing?

You can't do it.

What I don't get, is why you can't then say "you're right, there's no reason to believe an additional gun law would have prevented this."

Again, I believe some additional gun laws could save lives (I wouldn't mind seeing bump stocks banned, and I don't have a huge problem with so-called red flag laws, where maybe guns are banned in homes where there's a serious known problem, which was the case with the Sandy Hook shooter, everybody in that town knew that kid was horribly broken)

But the garden variety gang-type shooting...I don't think additional gun laws are likely to stop those.

But you guys cannot ever stray from pure liberalism.

[nightfighter]

The U.S. Justice Department banned bump stocks at the federal level in December 2018, effective March 26, 2019.

[The Dad Fisherman]

I can go out to my garage and create a functional bump stock out of wood in about 30 minutes, I agree that there is no need for them in society, but banning them won't stop someone from using them.

Unfortunately on Red Flag laws, who decides what a Red Flag is? That is the inherent problem with them. You can't really just disarm a whole household, just because somebody seeks help for depression.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

The U.S. Justice Department banned bump stocks at the federal level in December 2018, effective March 26, 2019.

was that because of the vegas shooting?

shows what i know, had no idea they were banned.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I can go out to my garage and create a functional bump stock out of wood in about 30 minutes, I agree that there is no need for them in society, but banning them won't stop someone from using them.

Unfortunately on Red Flag laws, who decides what a Red Flag is? That is the inherent problem with them. You can't really just disarm a whole household, just because somebody seeks help for depression.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i don’t doubt you can build
one! but many people can’t do it themselves. so the ban won’t eliminate the threat, but it might reduce the threat. Of course it doesn’t address the ones that are already out there.

and of course you’re 100% correct on red flag laws, ripe for all kinds of abuse. i just don’t like the idea of doing nothing in response to burying an entire classroom of first graders. we ought to be able to respond by making SOME improvement somewhere, but i’m not claiming i know what that is.

i fully admit to having a blind spot on this issue. it’s heartbreaking. i had a golden retriever who was a certified pet therapy dog, we spent a few days in Sandy Hook after. It wasn’t the kind thing you forget.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i don’t doubt you can build
one! but many people can’t do it themselves. so the ban won’t eliminate the threat, but it might reduce the threat. Of course it doesn’t address the ones that are already out there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Shhh. We don't want Pete seeing that easy trick.

I know there are these kinds of hacks that can be pulled off. Again, I'd just feel better if we could point to something, and say "there was a tragedy, and at least we learned something and took precautions to make it less likely the next tragedy will occur".

Maybe the best we can do is fine tune mental health laws. I have no idea. I know you already know what I mean....

[Pete F.]

Silly, those things are for people that never learned to shoot.
They are money machines for ammo producers, though right now it doesn’t make any difference because production is maxed out
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Imagine that being charged for selling an inanimate object


Henry "Michael" Williams, 32, was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm after authorities say he sold the weapon that Malik Faisal Akram used when he entered Congregation Beth Israel

Akram paid $150 for the gun, according to charging documents. The documents state Williams was convicted in 2005 of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and attempted possession of a controlled substance in 2013.

But guess what he might have been legal in Texas


State and federal law differ when it comes to felons and possession of a firearm. Federal law does not allow a felon to possess a firearm. However, gun laws for felons in Texas are a bit different. In Texas, a felon can possess a firearm at his or her residence but only once five years have passed since the disposition of his or her conviction.

its an access problem!

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Imagine that being charged for selling an inanimate object


Henry "Michael" Williams, 32, was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm after authorities say he sold the weapon that Malik Faisal Akram used when he entered Congregation Beth Israel

Akram paid $150 for the gun, according to charging documents. The documents state Williams was convicted in 2005 of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and attempted possession of a controlled substance in 2013.

But guess what he might have been legal in Texas


State and federal law differ when it comes to felons and possession of a firearm. Federal law does not allow a felon to possess a firearm. However, gun laws for felons in Texas are a bit different. In Texas, a felon can possess a firearm at his or her residence but only once five years have passed since the disposition of his or her conviction.

its an access problem!

I agree it's an access problem. There are untold millions of guns out there. No law is going to stop a determined criminal from getting one of them.

Chicago has very strict gun control laws. Are they helping reduce violent crime?

It's also (and more so) a cultural problem. Our culture is producing waaay too many people who aren't bothered by hurting others. Liberals hate, hate, hate discussing that side of it, because it's a huge political loser for them,. because liberalism causes it.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I agree it's an access problem. There are untold millions of guns out there. No law is going to stop a determined criminal from getting one of them.

Chicago has very strict gun control laws. Are they helping reduce violent crime?

It's also (and more so) a cultural problem. Our culture is producing waaay too many people who aren't bothered by hurting others. Liberals hate, hate, hate discussing that side of it, because it's a huge political loser for them,. because liberalism causes it.

Gun control it about limiting access but the right only speaks in terms of BANNING weapons

Overall since 2006, firearm homicides in the U.S. have decreased, but the number of firearm suicides has increased by a similar amount.4

Even when firearm homicide rates were at their highest in the mid-1990s (just above 7/100,000 population), they were not higher than those for firearm suicide.


See Jim Guns like immigration ebb and flow thu R and D administrations

But theres one constant just like in Immigration the Rights AKA GOP unwillingness to address these issues . its all about the Vote its not about responsible approaches . for them they take the path of least resistance.. they just say No. and they blame away they blame the criminal they blame the immigrant and every election cycle its the wash rinse and repeat

The GOP and 2a people cant even accept background checks ! But they support no license no Gun registration open Carry ( the good guy with a gun argument ) all while yelling Freedom..

You can have as many guns as you want . but you should be licensed and those weapons should be registered to the owner. for accountability.. not the their fantasy of gun confiscation

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Gun control it about limiting access but the right only speaks in terms of BANNING weapons

Overall since 2006, firearm homicides in the U.S. have decreased, but the number of firearm suicides has increased by a similar amount.4

Even when firearm homicide rates were at their highest in the mid-1990s (just above 7/100,000 population), they were not higher than those for firearm suicide.


See Jim Guns like immigration ebb and flow thu R and D administrations

But theres one constant just like in Immigration the Rights AKA GOP unwillingness to address these issues . its all about the Vote its not about responsible approaches . for them they take the path of least resistance.. they just say No. and they blame away they blame the criminal they blame the immigrant and every election cycle its the wash rinse and repeat

The GOP and 2a people cant even accept background checks ! But they support no license no Gun registration open Carry ( the good guy with a gun argument ) all while yelling Freedom..

You can have as many guns as you want . but you should be licensed and those weapons should be registered to the owner. for accountability.. not the their fantasy of gun confiscation

you’re right, the gop only cares about votes, and democrats only care about solving problems, even if it means losing the next election. democrats would rather solve problems effectively, then win elections.

It’s so obvious. thanks for saying it.

When Biden told blacks that “republicans want to put y’all back in chains”, you’re saying that wasn’t done to get votes, but was an attempt to solve an important problem.

which problem did that attempt to solve?

when democrats say everyone who disagrees with them is racist, that’s not an attempt to get votes?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

only leftists care about people.....

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

you’re right, the gop only cares about votes, and democrats only care about solving problems, even if it means losing the next election. democrats would rather solve problems effectively, then win elections.

It’s so obvious. thanks for saying it.

When Biden told blacks that “republicans want to put y’all back in chains”, you’re saying that wasn’t done to get votes, but was an attempt to solve an important problem.

which problem did that attempt to solve?

when democrats say everyone who disagrees with them is racist, that’s not an attempt to get votes?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Biden told blacks that “republicans want to put y’all back in chains


Buy a new Drum
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Biden told blacks that “republicans want to put y’all back in chains


Buy a new Drum
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

why did he say it? was he trying to solve a problem? or was he playing politics? you said republicans pander for votes, and democrats solve problems.

fine. tell me why biden said that.

when you can’t answer the question, that means you lose.

a senior obama
advisor cannes senator sinema a c*nt.

politics, or problem solving?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

why did he say it? was he trying to solve a problem? or was he playing politics? you said republicans pander for votes, and democrats solve problems.

fine. tell me why biden said that.

when you can’t answer the question, that means you lose.

a senior obama
advisor cannes senator sinema a c*nt.

politics, or problem solving?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim your a good sheep keep up the work


Republicans seek to portray Biden's Supreme Court pick as 'radical liberal', although he has yet to chose anyone


Republican Sen. Rick Scott of Florida , predicting that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer would whip Democrats to back a "radical liberal with extremist views."

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Jim your a good sheep keep up the work


Republicans seek to portray Biden's Supreme Court pick as 'radical liberal', although he has yet to chose anyone


Republican Sen. Rick Scott of Florida , predicting that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer would whip Democrats to back a "radical liberal with extremist views."

i’m going to try and
meet you halfway here…

Biden’s nominee is going to get confirmed, the gop
should do what they did with Kagan and Sotomator, just vote for her. That’s how conforming supreme court justices used to be

now, for the third time, why did biden say that republicans want to put blacks in chains? Since you said democrats don’t pander for votes because they’re too busy solving actual problems, please tell us what problem he was trying to solve with that remark.

Third time i asked.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Republicans seek to portray Biden's Supreme Court pick as 'radical liberal', although he has yet to chose anyone


Republican Sen. Rick Scott of Florida , predicting that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer would whip Democrats to back a "radical liberal with extremist views."

it's a "prediction"...probably a good one