I believe we may have come up with a viable compromise.

And thus, the problem is the media, not the guns.
Addressing the lies laid out and/or supported by the media (and posters on this forum) IS addressing the problem.

- - - Updated - - -

Still waiting for you to prove your claim.

 

He wants people to think that there are active shooter instances daily.

 

Yes.... and to do so, he must willfully misrepresent the truth.

 

If anyone is trying to obfuscate an issue regarding Universal Background Checks it definitely would be the anti - gun left wingers.

In 1989 Patrick Purdy went onto a playground and killed five children in Stockton, California. I remember it quite well because it happened on my birthday. That was over 25 years ago. Since that time I have followed a wide range of proposed solutions to firearm related deaths.

One of the proposed "solutions" then, as now, has been the Universal Background Check. Well, Patrick Purdy went through a background check. Five years earlier, James Huberty would murder 21 people in San Ysidro, California. Huberty was an out of work security guard that had gone through background checks. Enrique Marquez, the man who supplied the San Bernadino guns to Islamic terrorists, got his weapons legally - which means he went through a background check.

Background checks do not address the real issues. What a background check does is give a pretext for registering firearms. That is a precursor to weapon confiscations. In about a dozen threads on this forum, I have discussed ways to solve the problems and protect society against men like Purdy, Martinez and Huberty.

The left will have none of that because it does not play into their narrative of Universal Background Checks. If we want to acknowledge the reality of a situation, here it is plain and simple: Even IF we had background checks, it would not have stopped the San Bernadino shootings; would not have prevented Patrick Purdy or James Huberty. Background checks would not have been effective against the shooters at Columbine nor the shooting at Sandy Hook.

There IS a solution; however, it has nothing to do with Universal Background Checks (which are patently unconstitutional in a de jure constitutional Republic) nor the banning of any certain class of weapons. There is a solution, but it does not require registration or the ultimate goal of confiscating privately held weapons.

If a proposed "solution" would not have fixed the problems people are using as examples to justify the supposed need, then there is not much to discuss. Right?

 

Violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments. Who needs those things anyway??

 

What is the "solution" that you are proposing?

 

There are a number of solutions, not a one size fits all. I'm going to do an in depth thread one of these days so that I don't repeat points over and over. Let me hit some high spots.

The fastest growing number of gun deaths is mass shooters. Mass shooters are jihadists OR they are generally white males between 17 and about 45. With white males (and all mass shooters other than jihadists) they are on a schedule of drugs called SSRIs. SSRIs are psychotropic drugs with the known side effects of giving the user thoughts of suicide or homicide. ALL you have to do to get SSRIs is go to a mental health official like a psychiatrist OR your local doctor. Complain about anxiety or depression and use some combination or similar words like you are depressed or anxious with the thought that you might commit suicide, kill or harm yourself or some other person. Presto. You've got a prescription for Zoloft, Paxil, Prozac, etc. AND maybe a one way ticket to a decision you can't take back.

We all know what we need to do in regards to jihadists. With people on SSRIs, we must address that issue. SSRIs must be the last resort for the mental health and medical community. And, drugs like that need only be prescribed when a patient is in a controlled environment. Those kinds of drug users do not belong running amok, unsupervised in a free society. That solution would have served as a deterrent with all the cases I cited earlier.

Another solution involves lowering the possibility of domestic violence. Make it harder to get a marriage license and harder to get a divorce. A little premarital counseling might deter people that are not going to make it realize that BEFORE they tie the knot. A marriage license is permission from the government. It can be restricted as unalienable Rights cannot.

I have solutions to deal with gangs and drug kingpins. Most every scenario can be dealt with and NONE of it requires background checks, banning firearms, or the other infringements the liberals are so fond of. But, again, we aren't out to ban cars because people drink, drive and kill their fellow man. The solutions offered to deal with the DUI issue do not infringe upon society as a whole. Nobody advocates a background check in order to buy booze. So, what??? You think it' okay for a drunk to mow down your family and then as soon as he's released, he can enter a bar and get drunk yet again? Really?

Sensible solutions. That's what we need - not unworkable infringements.

 

What does that have to do with what I said?

You made a claim:
".... according to the FBI, the incidence of mass shootings/domestic terrorism has increased from one every 6 months to almost daily now."
As you have said to any number of other posters here, when you make a claim, it is up to you to support that claim.

Well?

- - - Updated - - -

The solution is to fight the lies and misrepresentations put out by the media and people such as yourself that create the impression that violent crime is on the rise.

 

Great post.

Let's start with the SSRI drugs. Patient privacy is a major issue and the medical community are not going to want to publish a list of whomever they are prescribing SSRI's to use given that it will only be a subset who are suicidal/homicidal. The solution to that dilemma might be with those dispensing the drugs just as it is with bars and booze. In essence a druggist must ascertain if the person they are providing with the SSRI is a danger to themselves or the general public. The advantage is that it is an ongoing means of monitoring the individual and it is done face to face. The dispenser does not have to withhold the SSRI, just notify the doctor and the authorities if they have any concerns.

Domestic violence laws need to be revisited for the safety of first responders IMO. If an incident is reported to the police then there must always be a public safety follow up. If the PSO makes a determination that there is a potential threat then it must go before a judge to make a ruling on the best course of action. If the couple agrees to counseling then all is fine but if they refuse then the judge should have the right to ensure that all weapons are handed over to someone else for safekeeping. That is not "confiscation", it is merely being prudent. The weapons can be taken care of by a relative or a friend who agrees to be custodian until the domestic violence is resolved.

- - - Updated - - -

Ironic!

 

You made a claim:
".... according to the FBI, the incidence of mass shootings/domestic terrorism has increased from one every 6 months to almost daily now."
As you have said to any number of other posters here, when you make a claim, it is up to you to support that claim.

Well?

 

By my count you have posted this 7 times already.

Your post was answered in both #54 and # 57 above.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=437419&page=6&p=1065678016#post1065678016

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=437419&page=6&p=1065678908#post1065678908

If you don't like the facts provided in the links then that is not my problem.

 

The problem isn't guns, but guns in the wrong hands.

that's why we need UBC

 

Neither of these sources prove your claim that "...according to the FBI,the incidence of mass shootings/domestic terrorism has increased from one every 6 months to almost daily now".
Disagree?
Cite the text to that effect.
It is, after all, your responsibility to support your claims.

 

Texts were cited in the posts provided.

Congratulations, you are winner of a one-way ticket to Cyberia.

Judges decisions are final. No refunds or cash substitutions. Don't forget to pack warmly and enjoy your extended stay.

 

Are you still trying to persuade people into thinking that active shooter situations are occurring daily? Cause you know thats not true.
Daily.... you still sticking with that?

 

None of those sources, or the text from those sources, said anything like "...the incidence of mass shootings/domestic terrorism has increased from one every 6 months to almost daily now".
So... cite the text that supports your claim.

See, we both know you made that up -- difference is I am willing to admit it.

 

Apparently he doesn't like it when people catch him posting information he knows to be false.

 

353 mass shootings up to 12/7/2015.

http://www.shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015

How many does that average out to per day?

 

Sorry... I didn't see your numbers from the FBI that show "the incidence of mass shootings/domestic terrorism has increased from one every 6 months to almost daily now."

Of course, according to your post #54, the FBI define "mass shooting" as “a multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered with firearms, within one event, in at least one or more public locations” -- and so the huge majority of the instances you cite here are not mass shootings.

Care to try again?
At what point are you willing to admit to yourself that you deliberately made a false statement?

 

Again, trying to make people believe that mass shootings are the same as innocent people being shot by an active shooter.
When you say mass shootings, you are including all the gang on gang shootings. Criminal on criminal.
Why do you suppose these anti gun websites don't distinguish between 4 homies in the hood getting wounded, and active shooters killing innocent people.?

 

You missed the part where he moved the goalpost.
According to HIS source, the FBI defines "mass shooting" as “a multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered with firearms, within one event, in at least one or more public locations” -- and so the huge majority of the instances he cited are not mass shootings.

 

Yea, here is a direct quote from the link he provided...
"The CRS report, which was based on data from the FBI and also from criminologist Grant Duwe, found that the U.S. sees a total of 21 mass murders by firearms a year on average—including not just public shootings in places like churches and schools, but familicide and shootings committed during other criminal activity."

The report recommends Congress direct the federal government to improve how it collects data on shootings with multiple fatalities.

Not quite daily is it, and not mainly innocent people.

 

And so.... he willfully made a statement he knew to be false.

 

The link describes 353 mass shootings in 2015 up until 12/7/15.

Trying to minimize them does not alter the total number of mass shootings.

 

The term "mass shooting" is used to conjure up images of innocent people being killed by a madman with an AR-15.
This is intentional from the anti gun groups. They want you to believe that you need to ban "assault weapons" to keep mass shootings from happening.
The truth is that the total number is not made up of innocent people going about their daily lives. In fact the majority are criminal on criminal violence committed with handguns by multiple shooters.