Mass Shooting Thread: Waiting on the next one.

tekthemaestro said:
as for high mag capacities.... only a law abiding citizen will heed those rules. people literally download the model for a high cap mag and 3d print it themselves within a couple hours. all they have to go buy is a spring from home depot. california already has ridiculous mag restrictions and every gun owner that i know in cali hates it. but theyre all law abiding so they follow it. the only ones who dont.... are the criminals.
Click to expand...

Here's what I don't get about this "law abiding citizen" talk, everybody is a law abiding citizen until the break the law.
had that guy not committed this crime he's still be a law abiding citizen. Most "law abiding citizens" I've encountered in gun groups also believe that if they were asked to hand over their guns per a new law they refer to the old "Come and take it" attitude
 
iamdef said:
Most "law abiding citizens" I've encountered in gun groups also believe that if they were asked to hand over their guns per a new law they refer to the old "Come and take it" attitude
Click to expand...

This is one of many reasons why there’s such resistance to confiscation laws. People will die, guaranteed.

Buy back programs are a somewhat good idea, we have had them here in my county. Crazy thing though every person I know that participated used the funds towards upgrading or purchasing other guns.

The thing with the law abiding citizen argument is essentially implying that there is no criminal intent. But that is only for that moment in particular, it doesn’t apply to the future. So I get that argument. I hadn’t really given it that much thought.
 
getback said:
Why Mandatory Firearm Insurance Could Be a Hugely Powerful Gun Control Play

https://observer.com/2018/03/why-mandatory-firearm-insurance-could-be-a-powerful-gun-control-play/
Click to expand...

the amount of people who drive without insurance.... think about it for a sec. now think about what would happen with 300 million + guns in circulation where suddenly u need to pay a "premium" to continue to have it. its a bad idea. one that once again only punishes those who follow the law.

"hey all u non criminal, law abiding, good willed gun owners... u will now pay yet ANOTHER insurance premium that wont do anything to help you. sure, home insurance barely works, car insurance barely works, disaster insurance barely works....we promise... we'll get the gun one right. so.. thanks for following the rules. heres ur new monthly bill."

nah. you just turned a large % of law-abiding citizens into criminals who are no longer registering guns.
 
RIP sleazyy said:
This is one of many reasons why there’s such resistance to confiscation laws. People will die, guaranteed.

Buy back programs are a somewhat good idea, we have had them here in my county. Crazy thing though every person I know that participated used the funds towards upgrading or purchasing other guns.

The thing with the law abiding citizen argument is essentially implying that there is no criminal intent. But that is only for that moment in particular, it doesn’t apply to the future. So I get that argument. I hadn’t really given it that much thought.
Click to expand...

I agree I don't think confiscation is a realistic option, there will be violence. And don't let one or two people fight off the first wave of the confiscation officers come. That'll energize others to really rebel and fight back.

I think buyback would be something worth implementing nationwide, not everybody is gonna do it of course but some would and there's little to no harm to be done.

It's just not a valid point to make to me. What is a law abiding citizen? Someone who has never broken the law? Someone who only breaks the little laws like speeding or jaywalking? Or someone who has broken laws but hasn't been caught yet? Or maybe somebody who broke a law before, was caught but paid their dues and their debts to society and have been behaving for the last 3 months?
 
iamdef said:
Here's what I don't get about this "law abiding citizen" talk, everybody is a law abiding citizen until the break the law.
had that guy not committed this crime he's still be a law abiding citizen. Most "law abiding citizens" I've encountered in gun groups also believe that if they were asked to hand over their guns per a new law they refer to the old "Come and take it" attitude
Click to expand...

which is precisely why "stricter" background checks will do nothing. hence why i said u have to tackle the real problem... the mental issues which lead to these shootings. nobody is a criminal until they do a crime and get caught. background checks cant predict future behavior. so u hustling backwards thinking background checks will solve a large % of the issue.

u have to fix the culture. these shooters really think theyve been dealt the short end of the stick in life. some are sickos who are literally bored and think killing is fun. that **** aint normal. no amount of background check, and no law is going to prevent them from snapping one day and saying **** it.

btw that come and take it stuff is usually from the same ol country bumpkins who talk big but get folded up soon as they let that N word slip at the wrong place. if the govt wanted to seize guns, theyd probably use stupid amount of force (moreso against minorities) and start wiping people out. guns cant stop the govt. and deep down these idiots know that, they just want to act tough. these people are in denial about many things... from what the confederate flag stands for, to racism being obamas fault, racism not existing anymore, trump being great for america, them fighting the govt they love so much if they try to take the guns lol. dont pay them any mind.

govt gonna hit ur home with a drone flown from 20 miles away via xbox controller if another citizen vs govt war broke out. your little ARs and handguns dont have any answers for what the govt would throw if they instituted a confiscation order.
 
tekthemaestro said:
which is precisely why "stricter" background checks will do nothing. hence why i said u have to tackle the real problem... the mental issues which lead to these shootings. nobody is a criminal until they do a crime and get caught. background checks cant predict future behavior. so u hustling backwards thinking background checks will solve a large % of the issue.

u have to fix the culture. these shooters really think theyve been dealt the short end of the stick in life. some are sickos who are literally bored and think killing is fun. that **** aint normal. no amount of background check, and no law is going to prevent them from snapping one day and saying **** it.

btw that come and take it stuff is usually from the same ol country bumpkins who talk big but get folded up soon as they let that N word slip at the wrong place. if the govt wanted to seize guns, theyd probably use stupid amount of force (moreso against minorities) and start wiping people out. guns cant stop the govt. and deep down these idiots know that, they just want to act tough. these people are in denial about many things... from what the confederate flag stands for, to racism being obamas fault, racism not existing anymore, trump being great for america, them fighting the govt they love so much if they try to take the guns lol. dont pay them any mind.

govt gonna hit ur home with a drone flown from 20 miles away via xbox controller if another citizen vs govt war broke out. your little ARs and handguns dont have any answers for what the govt would throw if they instituted a confiscation order.
Click to expand...

stricter background checks combined with some additional regulations (classes and tests to determine decision making aptitude and more) can help prevent some of those guys who have had some issues in the past from getting guns and things escalating from there. A man who has a violent past shouldn't be able to buy a gun if there's documented cases of him being violent. Not just officially being arrested but some kind of official report that gets filed anytime law enforcement is called. If a person's record shows some concerns then they have additional screening to get through before they can purchase a weapon. If they can't pass it or refuse, they get nothing.

Understood that many of those guys who talk a big game aren't really about that action and anybody who thinks about it for a minute or two knows that if the gov't wanted something, coming and taking it would be a breeze. But most of those same country dudes aren't too bright and are just the right amount of drunk on "constitutional rights" that they do believe that they can fight off anybody from their land.

I hope I'm not giving off the vibe that I feel like I know a bunch about gun laws and what can be done to fix it, cause I'll admit quickly that I don't
 
tekthemaestro said:
which is precisely why "stricter" background checks will do nothing. hence why i said u have to tackle the real problem... the mental issues which lead to these shootings. nobody is a criminal until they do a crime and get caught. background checks cant predict future behavior. so u hustling backwards thinking background checks will solve a large % of the issue.
Click to expand...

I think both can be true.

Like Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter, had a history of "significant mental health issues affecting his ability to live a normal life." Dude also was "obsessed with mass shootings." Those types things should be on background checks. Like anyone who leaves a disturbing comment on a facebook thread or something. Boom they get reported and go on a list. Severe mental health issues, same thing.

Since it was his mother's guns, those questions should have been asked of HER about people living under her roof. People like him shouldn't be in close proximity to guns. And if you own guns you should have to submit to a background check often, to account for people like this kid who probably slowly progressed into more disturbing behavior, as it may have not been the case when the mom first purchased the weapons.

Could be as simple as a yearly mailer prompting the owner to go online and update the their info and the info of people living with them. Then if said person selects box that says "treated for (insert mental health condition)" they get flagged and more info needs to be provided, further background needs to be submitted, etc. Maybe refer person to state assigned psychologist or something.

I'm just throwing out ideas. I'm not even saying this will prevent x number of shootings. I'm just advocating for more checks and balances.
 
Last edited:
getback said:
I think both can be true.

Like Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter, had a history of "significant mental health issues affecting his ability to live a normal life." Dude also was "obsessed with mass shootings." Those types things should be on background checks. Like anyone who leaves a disturbing comment on a facebook thread or something. Boom they get reported and go on a list. Severe mental health issues, same thing.

Since it was his mother's guns, those questions should have been asked of HER about people living under her roof. People like him shouldn't be in close proximity to guns. And if you own guns you should have to submit to a background check often, to account for people like this kid who probably slowly progressed into more disturbing behavior, as it may have not been the case when the mom first purchased the weapons.

Could be as simple as a yearly mailer prompting the owner to go online and update the their info and the info of people living with them. Then if said person selects box that says "treated for (insert mental health condition)" they get flagged and more info needs to be provided, further background needs to be submitted, etc. Maybe refer person to state assigned psychologist or something.

I'm just throwing out ideas. I'm not even saying this will prevent x number of shootings. I'm just advocating for more checks and balances.
Click to expand...
iamdef said:
stricter background checks combined with some additional regulations (classes and tests to determine decision making aptitude and more) can help prevent some of those guys who have had some issues in the past from getting guns and things escalating from there. A man who has a violent past shouldn't be able to buy a gun if there's documented cases of him being violent. Not just officially being arrested but some kind of official report that gets filed anytime law enforcement is called. If a person's record shows some concerns then they have additional screening to get through before they can purchase a weapon. If they can't pass it or refuse, they get nothing.

Understood that many of those guys who talk a big game aren't really about that action and anybody who thinks about it for a minute or two knows that if the gov't wanted something, coming and taking it would be a breeze. But most of those same country dudes aren't too bright and are just the right amount of drunk on "constitutional rights" that they do believe that they can fight off anybody from their land.

I hope I'm not giving off the vibe that I feel like I know a bunch about gun laws and what can be done to fix it, cause I'll admit quickly that I don't
Click to expand...

what you're both talking about isnt STRICTER background checks. these are the red flag laws people want to go into play. and they DEFINITELY should. no matter how strict a background check is... a clean record is a clean record. but... red flag laws would bring up that someone was once committed, or was expelled for bringing a weapon to school or an unusually violent fight. maybe their teacher triggered a red flag when they noticed violent journal entries or a kid is drawing people with their heads cut off instead of ponys. twitter or instagram account has been flagged for extremist views or he is flagged by some govt branch as being interested in terrorism. maybe they're suffering from a mental disorder, or have been to therapy for violent tendencies or fantasies.

those things NEED to come up and a background check wont have em. or even like getback said... if u even have a person like that in the house as a gunowner... it needs to come up. THAT would cut down on this stuff significantly. and it needs to go into effect. nothing pisses me off more than after these things people are like "yea well he did post on snapchat that he was about to shoot up the school today." OH YEA!? so there were warnings but you just doubled tapped it to send a heart and kept scrolling? smfh.

anyway. universal background checks + red flag barriers of ownership would do wonders. that plus fixing whatever sickness is going on with the young white male in america would damn near eliminate the issue.
 
They don't seem like they're mutually exclusive. The red flags would exist WITHIN the background check, thus making the background checks stricter.
 
getback said:
They don't seem like they're mutually exclusive. The red flags would exist WITHIN the background check, thus making the background checks stricter.
Click to expand...
dont think red flags should exist within a background check. specifically because those background checks are also used within job apps. and i have a strong nagging feeling that it would become weaponized (and u know who would get the short end of it) to bar people from all kinds of things. i think they should remain 2 separate comprehensive reports. and u gotta pass both checks. guns are one thing, but imagine people not being able to get jobs or get a nice apartment/house cuz of something that happened when they were younger. youre condemning them almost like the "have you ever been convicted of a crime" checkbox on a job app.

having 2 separate reports should mitigate red flags for weapon ownership from spilling over into ruining peoples lives, ironically forcing them into crime to survive.
 
This why I try not to go to places with large crowds of randoms. Every time I do I'm uncomfortable. I know the odds of it happening are low, but still.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom