Banks Are Devising Ways to ID Mass Shooters Before They Strike

Totally ****ing serious...

More inconvenient to more people... I prefer to inconvenience the minority causing the problem instead of the majority for being targets...

 

Well, that's pretty inconvenient, but that's obviously not what I was referring to either... I was referring to "securing schools" as a way of stopping mass shooters, which MAGA MIGHT have noticed is not limited to schools...

Doubtful you've noticed, but I leave the possibility open...

 

Persecuting minorities. That's pretty much the opposite of what our constitution was established to prevent.

But good luck with that.

 

Another person who feels they have to substitute their words for my words... Class acts all..

 

If you identify the person then you can identify the indicators as well. But I suspect that identifying the unusual purchases is simply the first step. What you will probably see is cooperation between banks and law enforcement in the final proposal.

 

Not really. If you think it is a violation of the 4th, it won't if they have permission from the owner of the accounts. And that has been confirmed as an exception to a warrant by the Supreme Court.

 

Inconvenience - cause trouble or difficulty to.

Persecute - subject (someone) to hostility and ill-treatment.

Difference? I don't see one. Especially since you qualified your inconvenience to a minority. If you inconvenience everyone that's not persecution. If you inconvenience a minority, that is persecution.

So what's the plan exactly? When the government receives a report of suspicious gun buying do we send a crack team of unarmed therapists out to perform a field mental heath assessment? And when the gun buyer simply closes the door on them is it case closed?

 

If there was no difference, why the substitution?

 

Because I get to decide what words I use? Do you expect me to just repeat exactly what you say? Not much of a conversation there. If you don't like that, maybe you're better off talking into a recording device so you can play it back to yourself instead of coming to a place like this.

 

In terms of implementation, how much different would it be than a bank or mortgage loaner obtaining a credit history to determine credit

Three common variables to all mass shootings: the shooter, the target, and the weapon

There exists no way to determine who the next shooter will be. We also don’t know what the target will be, and there are too many to adequately defend them all. However, the one variable we can exercise control over is the weapon, and in America today, access to guns is nearly nonexistent

 

When you are trying (and failing) to refute what I said, it's always best to argue apples to apples...

If you want to start over and ask why I want to persecute gun buyers, I will counter accordingly (or not, since I don't consider it that)

And BTW, none of you are even using the word inconvenience in the same context I made it, so it's moot anyway...

 

Correction: it won't be totally ignored. There are thousands of persons who will churn the hell out of it seeing what they can get to stick.

 

Credit histories are solid, factual, 100% exact (though not necessarily accurate), and unassailable. The exact opposite of detecting mass shooters. Your common variables also apply to the hundreds of million shooters who are not mass killers.

 

I didn't refute what you said. I have no doubt you want to inconvenience minorities. What I did do was paraphrase what you said. You can take issue with that, but it's on you to explain the distinction. To me they are the same. How is the persecution of gun purchasers different from the inconvenience of them? After all, making certain minorities wear a star on their sleeve is merely an inconvenience...

The problem here isn't the language I used. The problem is the difference between your intent and and your method. Clearly you take issue with the word persecution. That's apparently not what you intend. So how would someone who wanted to persecute gun buyers behave differently?

It's not about words. It's about the effects of policy.

 

Huh? "nonexistent"? Did you, perhaps, mean the opposite of that?

 

Not if you're just a bank. You have no way of knowing the sort of information about your customers that might indicate they're a mass shooter in the making rather than someone who is just buying a gift for their husband, or trying to protect themselves from a violent stalker.

And this is the problem: a perfectly lawful purchase can't be the basis for an investigation by law enforcement.

 

The minority causing the problem of gun violence in this country is overwhelmingly young black men. You support inconveniencing them? Racist much?

 

I wonder which names on the bank's list are most likely to receive immediate attention from the armed men sent to knock on their doors. But that would be fault of enforcement, right? Not at all the fault of the very good intentions of the policy supporters.

 

I'm sure the bank's motives are entirely pure as well. There couldn't possibly be a business motive to locate and process a person through the legal system to ..uh.. like.. you know.. recoup a financial loss or anything.

 

No, access to getting a gun in America is easy, just about anyone who wants one can get one, you can even buy them on line (https://www.armslist.com/), just check a box agreeing to the “terms of use” promising to follow all laws, and you are on your way

 

As I said, in terms of implementation, aren’t credit histories largely a running record of transactions to latter be used to create a profile of the individual? How is this any different?

 

Not an investigation, rather another factor that could be valuable in implementing red flag laws

 

I think you've fundamentally misunderstood how "buying a gun online" works. Did you imagine they just ship it to your house? Like ordering some widget off Amazon?

 

It seems you don't understand how red flag laws work either. There seems to be a lot about firearm laws you don't know. Maybe you should try posting less and reading more, or at least asking questions rather than making factually-incorrect assertions.

 

Well, no one is planning on reporting your grocery store purchases to the government as "suspicious", just for starters.