How do we prevent these mass shootings?

Yes, & it saved Europe twice in the recent past. If not for the US 'gun culture' you'd be speaking German.

 

Ouestion: Do the 93% of the public and the Association Police Chiefs that support closing loopholes in background checks to prevent homicidal maniacs from easily acquiring their killing instruments have a right expect their elected representatives carrying out their wishes?

I believe that Americans do have that right.

 

Otoh very few fighter aces flew as children
It is possible to learn such skills

Also
The people you mention were certainly outstanding
But they did not determine the outcome of any conflict

it seems unlikely that the outcome of future conflicts will be determined by the hunting skills of the combatants

Not arguing for getting rid of guns
It just seems to me the argument you present illustrates confirmatory bias
Ie... We gotta have lots of guns around or we will be unable to defend ourselves

 

I doubt whether having fun with guns in his youth is a significant factor in whether a young man grows up to be a hero or a murderer.

Was "The DC Sniper" of over a decade ago intimate with guns as a child before he earning the Expert Rifleman's Badge, the Army's highest of three levels of basic rifle marksmanship, and went on to shoot ten people to death?

I have no idea.

I certainly see the sense in militias being well-organized, but see no correlation between the disparate matters.


.

 

Your own quote above shows that the problem is not a "loop hole", there is no loop hole. What there is is a background check system that SHOULD work, but doesn't because information is not being entered into that existing background check system.

Your suggestion? More laws. More laws that won't be supported, ran correctly, or enforced.

If the background check system you have now doesn't work by your own data and admission, how is extending that non-working background check system going to work?

Answer: It won't.

What we have is sufficient to check the 7% of criminals that are obtaining their weapons legally, if it wasn't being run at normal levels of government competence.

 

You may believe that 93% of Americans do not have the right to have their elected representatives follow their wishes by closing the loopholes in background checks.

I believe that is their right.

 

Yeah keep throwing up your smokescreen and ignoring the points of my argument.

I can also show you where 80% of police and americans want less restrictive gun laws.

Keep hiding behind your polls.

P.S. I like how you removed the quoted information that you realize does not support your argument. Such liberal behavior.

 

Here's what the police think of your ridiculous stance. You know, the guys who know more about combating crime than any legislator, or indeed, any of us non-LEO's

http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legisl...ey-11-key-lessons-from-officers-perspectives/



Notice how "more gun laws" barely make the list.

 

You need to cite a blatantly bogus "study"?

Nice try.

I still support the 93% of Americans who support universal background checks. If that get Wayne LaPierre pissy, too bad.

 

Yeah Police One is bogus huh? Cite proof since that is your claim.

The only Pinocchio here is you, deleting info from your own posts when you realize they don't support your argument.

Here's another one, is it bunk too?

http://www.secondcalldefense.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/Violent-Encounters.pdf

You argue for an expansion of a system that already doesn't work, you fool no one no matter how many photos you include or how many ridiculous claims or how many times you repeat the same nonsense.

You're right about one thing though, the American people WILL decide correctly, no matter how much you repeat your gun-banning mantra.

 

The Washington Post article to which I linked exposed your "study" and assigned your source three Pinocchios.

I have no idea what you imagine that I deleted.

I enthusiastically support the right of the overwhelming majority of Americans to have universal background checks to prevent homicidal maniacs and criminals from easy access to the weapons they would use to kill people.

CBS News/New York Times Poll. Oct. 21-25, 2015.

"Do you favor or oppose a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers?"

Favor:92%.....Oppose: 7%​

Since I have never mentioned nor advocated "gun-banning" I have no idea what you think you're talking about.


.

 

No, no one of them by themselves changed the outcome of any conflict - except *arguably* Vasily Zeitsef, who became such a morale booster for the entire Red Army that he might have made that much of a difference, however difficult to measure. Likewise, Simo Hayha had such a debilitating affect on Soviet morale that it could be well argued that w/o Hayha, the Finns would not have gotten the peace agreement they did. In less than 100 days, Hayha had 542 confirmed sniper kills, and the Soviets called him the "White Death". And if you're looking for #s, he also killed hundreds more in other ways, bringing his count to over 800. Again, the numbers alone (imo) aren't enough to have changed the outcome, but take away all of Finland's Hayhas, men like him who were such crack shots because they grew up around guns then yes, I think they would have lost the Winter War.

As far as pilots, sure, but if you look back in history you'll find that the best fighter pilots, again, were hunters as children. Manfred Von Richtoften himself credited his youthful game and sport skills for his being such a good fighter pilot. For more modern flying equipment, it is of course far more complex and takes far more training - compare the amount of training given in boot camp to a soldier (typically about two weeks) to the amount of time given to a fighter pilot, which is actually usually about two years, sometimes a bit more or less, depending on the aircraft and the team the pilot flies with. But then again, foot soldiers aren't solely in charge of a piece of equipment worth over a quarter billion dollars.

 

Well, there is not a lot of hunting going on in china, or israel, or north korea, or the uk..... And they all seem to have capable militaries...

 

The only finding and argument against that poll was that it was representative of only 400,000 active and former police, who happened to be members. It's still valid for those that did participate.

What you deleted from your post that shows the edit 5 minutes after you posted it and read my argument, was that the problem with the background checks failed because data was not properly placed into the background system. What we have works when the data is placed into the system. You realized it didn't support your argument and deleted it from the post.

Your half-truths do mean that we all want fewer criminals to have access to guns, but anyone who is not ignorant of the subject matter know that UBC's will not work, and that it requires gun registration, which also will not work.

I call you a gun banner because based on the half truths and disinformation you spread you are either willfully ignorant of the real problems, or you want gun confiscation.

Either way, I oppose you and everyone like you.

 

That would me, nine-of-ten citizens, and law enforcement.

I am sorry that you are so alienated from America.

A permissive attitude toward homicidal maniacs and criminals easily acquiring their arsenals is allowing innocent people to be shot to death.

 

That's not true, of course. The multiple flaws in the agenda-driven "poll" were clearly exposed.

 

What's putting weapons into the hands of criminals is ignorance of the subject matter, feel-good laws, and government ineptitude.

Asking a simplistic question is of course going to get a simplistic answer. "Do you support extended background checks for criminals?" is like me asking "Do you support getting people off drugs"? Of course everyone is going to say "yes".

Tell us how you propose to do that, and respond to the questions I asked you earlier which you avoided like you were Neo in the Matrix.

Tell me how expanding back ground checks to an infinately more complicated system will work, when the simple system we have now doesn't work. Explain how you're going to get mental health professionals to put information in the system that would make those checks effective. Explain to us how you're going to repeal HIPPA which prevents much of that health information from being released? Tell us how you're going to get around the mental health laws which are even more restrictive?

What you propose is the chant of a simpleton, based firmly in emotion and not much else.

 

No it's not. Here is the questions and the info from the actual poll.

http://police-praetorian.netdna-ssl.com/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013.pdf

It was accused of being an "opt-in" poll (which is hilarious, because every poll is an opt-in poll, even when it's random), not representative of a broader base than the 400,000 active members of the first responder website, and was not conducted by an approved polling organization.

They still asked 400,000 front line current and former LEO's for their responses, and there they are.

 

Let's take one simple loophole, the closure of which is supported by the vast majority of Americans, law enforcement, and gun fanciers, Republicans and Democrats alike: extend the 3-day limit to ascertain whether a gun seeker is a homicidal maniac if that cannot be accomplished within 3 days, whilst expediting the procedure.

Stop pleading impotence. Americans are able to redress the permissiveness by which mass murderers obtain their weapons.

 

I also find it amusing that you would call the Police One poll into question and then reference the 40% private sales myth from a survey of a WHOPPING 251 people that got polled two decades ago, and then made the assumption that 40% of people (the remainder) were buying guns without background checks.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/03/guns-acquired-without-background-checks/

So much bend and twist, smoke and mirrors.

- - - Updated - - -

Then stop moving the goal post, answer the questions I posed to you, and we can go from there.

I'd love to debate it.

 

Yes. Stop clinging to your bogus, self-serving "study." It has been amply discredited.

 

The 15,595 responses of the 400,000 potential sample from current and former LEO's disagree with your assertion.

Of course, you counter my poll with one 2 decades old comprising all of 251 individuals polled, and then assumptions made on the remainder of a different question. Good job.

 

I don't find the frequency of innocents being shot to death in America amusing, and respect the right of the populace to enact and enforce legislation to prevent its happening so often.

Your claim of impotence in the face of such carnage is unacceptable.

If you don't yet grasp why your desperate dependence upon what has been exposed as a self-serving phony "poll", read it again:

 

Oh look, the "wall of text" defense while praying it's a TLR for me, complete and utter refusal to answer any of the questions regarding how those background checks would be done or enforced, constantly changing the subject, calling me un-American, and countering my poll of nearly 16,000 respondents with your own assumptive poll of 251 people from two decades ago.

That about sum it up?

You have no argument, you answer no questions, you repeat "99% of people want extended background checks" with no discussion on how that will be done.

You can sit there and rail all day, but 16,000 police officers took that survey and we clearly see the overwhelming response. I admitted it was not representative of ALL police and those areas in question.

Keep bleating about your background checks, we are not fooled.

Oh, I almost forgot.

You claim legislation will prevent it from happening.

I'll ask just one more question (again).

How does legislation stop the 93% of criminals who don't mosey on down to the gun store to get their guns?

Legislation will not stop people that want to murder other people when they're willing to die to do it.

 

If the vast majority of united states citizens truly do not agree with the national rifle association, then let them each donate five dollars per person, and accumulate funding in excess of one and a third billion dollars, and crush the organization as such.

Or is five dollars simply too much to ask of them?