Banks Are Devising Ways to ID Mass Shooters Before They Strike

I'm not sure why banks are worried. Aren't all banks a gun free zone and therefore impossible to have an active shooter scenario?

 

I have no doubt that banks can accurately identify which of their customers are using credit cards at firearm retailers. What they can NOT identify is which of those customers are going to go on to be mass shooters. Spending habits, or a departure from them, are not indicators of a mass shooter in the making. There are a multitude of reasons someone spent some money at a gun store for the first time other than "he's about to go on a mass shooting". Do you understand the problem now?

 

yep, they own our information, so they can give it up without us even knowing

 

number of gun purchases in the US (per year): 20,000,000
Number of mass shootings (per year): 12

If all of the mass shootings are done with brand new guns, the odds are 0.00006% that you can identify that person.
If the mass shootings are not necessarrily done with a new gun, then the odds go down to 3.05E-7% (0.000000307%)

The odds of that shooting happening in your bank is then 4e-12%. (0.000000000004%)

 

Doing it on the government's behalf is unconstitutional.

 

Good luck banks.. I agree that this doesn't sound like it'll be effective, but I'd rather attempt something that fails than than attempt nothing and ride the status quo...

Also, this doesn't sound like it will hassle gun owners... it'll hassle gun buyers, which is something I support all day long...

 

Ok — explain how tracking data is against the constitution.

 

Everything is a violation of the Constitution to MAGA (except outright election overriding, which is actually in there)... The major problem they have is coming up with the amendment closest to their fake claim.

Ya gotta feel for people who put that level of effort into making stuff up...

 

I don’t feel for them at all — the opposite actually

I hope it is studied so we can figure out how to prevent it going toward.

 

Well, I didn't actually say WHAT you have to feel.....

 

Congrats, this is the most retarded thing I've read on the internet today. Gun buyers become gun owners by virtue of buying a gun.

 

Awesome. Let's squash the media's over reporting everytime there is a mass shooter since that has proven to cause more mass shootings. Let's bring back the death penalty for murder and attempted murder.

 

The 'Crazy, Right-Wing Shooter' Myth

John Lott, RealClearPolitics

If you only read the New York Times editorials, you’d believe that political violence in America is a “right-wing” problem. The Times has been warning of violence from the right for years, but on Nov. 19 and 26, they wrote two long editorials making these claims. The violence stems from the lies “enthusiastically spread” by Republican politicians. Democrats’ only complicity was their $53 million in spending on “far-right fringe candidates in the primaries.” The fringe candidates, it was hoped, would be easier to beat in the general election.

Both editorials mention the mass murderer in Buffalo, New York, as a political right-winger. But they have been doing that all year. In May, the Times claimed he was of the right because he was racist and listened to a video on a “site known for hosting right-wing extremism.” The headline in the Times announced: “Replacement theory, espoused by the suspect in the Buffalo massacre, has been embraced by some right-wing politicians and commentators.”

You wouldn’t know it from reading the Times, but the Buffalo killer was yet another mass murderer motivated by environmentalism.

In his manifesto, the Buffalo mass murderer self-identifies as an “eco-fascist national socialist” and a member of the “mild-moderate authoritarian left.” He expresses concern that minority immigrants have too many children and will damage the environment. “The invaders are the ones overpopulating the world,” he writes. “Kill the invaders, kill the overpopulation and by doing so save the environment.”. . . .

 

The fourth amendment extends to the unreasonable collection of data. But that's not quite what's going on here. The bank is collecting data and then filing "suspicious activity" reports with the government.

Suspicion is not a crime. You can call the government any time you want and report that you suspect your neighbor is building a nuclear weapon in the basement. They can then go an knock on the door and conduct a consensual interview, but not much more can be done if your neighbor simply closes the door. The government would have to establish probable cause to pursue an investigation of this "suspicious activity"

https://thewebsterlawoffice.com/202...asonable,an inclination, rather than evidence.

The purchase of firearms does not constitute probable cause that a crime has taken place.

 

It shouldn't, but the point of Amalgamated Bank's efforts here is to change that. They want to make the purchase of firearms the predicate cause for an investigation of the purchaser, because as @Egoboy acknowledged, the real goal here is to hassle legal gun buyers.

 

That's not what I said, but thanks for the shout out anyway!

 

Except that's an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, even when done by a private actor so long as it was at the behest or coercion of the government which it is.
Thanks for admitting you're ok with infringements.
Were you aware that historically when new gun laws get passed, lynchings of black persons go up?
I'm sure the whole racist history of gun control has nothing to do with that and its surely a coincidence.

 

Here's what you said (since you apparently forgot):

 

Spend time and money securing schools. That will actually work.

 

Thanks for confirming your paraphrasing was off...

 

It might...... in schools...

But, as usual, the MAGA solution is the more expensive, complicated and inconvenient solution...

 

So you would rather have a "solution" that has a 0.000000000004% of possibly working vs a solution that will work to a large extent? Also, how inconvenient is it to have police show up at random houses to check and see if someone might be thinking about going on a shooting spree sometime in the future?

 

It wasn't "off". It was a paraphrase. This will hassle gun buyers, which is something you support. That's despicable, but I'm not the least bit surprised by that coming from you.

 

Inconvenient? Are you ****ing serious??

Saving lives is too expensive and inconvenient? That's ****ed up...lol

 

They can want to all day long. If the Government uses their want as a predicate to probable cause then there has been a constitutional violation.