Cross post from GD

[Duckhunter935]

A serious question

First I am for UBC and have no big issues using the Bush watch lists to prevent firearms purchases as long as due process rights are not infringed.

Would these have prevented Sandy Hook, columbine, San Bernardino, Orlando, Virginia Tech?

Please name one mass shooting that would have been prevented, please be honest.

Once again, put this into law but please do not think it will prevent most mass shooting events.

[hlthe2b]

1. Seatbelts do not prevent ALL motor vehicle deaths either...

but why is it that--only with firearms-- we must show that ANY change to gun laws MUST, NECESSARILY, prevent ALL gun-related mass murders/atrocities?

It is waaay past time that we move past this blatant ploy promoted by NRA, that, unfortunately has been so successful (until NOW) in bamboozling the public with respect to even the smallest and most logical measures to control gun access.

[Duckhunter935]

2. Never said all, please do not put words in my mouth

I asked if they would have prevented ANY, a big difference. Thanks for commenting.

[hlthe2b]

4. It is a distinction without a difference... It is setting an impossible standard

which is exactly what fervent NRA tries to do with its "line in the sand" in opposition TO ANY and ALL restrictions on guns.

[Duckhunter935]

6. It is a large difference, words matter

[Straw Man]

14. "Any" and "all" is a "distinction without a difference"?

And an "impossible standard"? C'mon now.

A: Can you show me where your proposal will have any effect whatsoever on the problem?
B: You're setting an impossible standard!

[Eleanors38]

16. The very King's English is an NRA TalkingPoint©.

[Duckhunter935]

17. I should have known

[DonP]

18. Don't expect much from them and you'll never be disappointed.

[Duckhunter935]

19. True nt

[JonathanRackham]

3. It's hard to discuss without complete information.

I believe it could have impacted San Bernardino and Orlando. Again, list of supporting information is not complete. The intelligence agencies are learning but not perfect. I don't want an Orwellian future.

[Duckhunter935]

5. Apparently not Orlando

As the murderer was not on the list. Possible in San Bernardino as it was a straw purchase and charges have been filed. As far as I understand, they were never identified as being on one of the lists.

[JonathanRackham]

9. Hmmm??

Have they commenced prosecuting the straw buy in San Bernardino? Overall the penalties for straw buys are not harsh enough to discourage people. The buyer should be charged as a conspirator.

Things are still gray with respect to Orlando.

[gejohnston]

7. it would have, maybe, impacted the means

either could have just as easily went to the local heroin dealer and got a full auto, like they do in Europe.

[DonP]

15. .... and when they do buy full autos from the local dealer ...

... and use them in a crime, the same "educated" voices will demand that we ban single action revolvers to stop the carnage.

[ileus]

8. The whole point isn't preventing anything...it's to lead to a total ban.

Of course we know that.

[Puha Ekapi]

10. I'm in agreement with your post...

..One of my big concerns with a push for bans (which won't do a damn thing to prevent criminals/terrorists) is that it could quite possibly give us a President Trump.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. The 2 sides of my coin on the UBC issue

>>Pros: Individuals will have a means by which they can be assured the person to whom they transfer a gun is not prohibited. As things are I can favor allowing NICS access by private persons through a law enforcement office for a voluntary check. This would be a tool for a regular individual to be certain that the person to whom they transfer a gun isn't on the prohibited list.

Making this mandatory does two things that I consider problems.

First, if both persons are fine with breaking the law, making UBCs mandatory won't stop them. Making UBCs mandatory would point to developing a means for administratively enforcing that law. That would be registration.

Second, inane "crimes" have resulted in places where BGCs are mandatory for all transfers. Having to get a BGC to lend your brother a gun for an hour or 3 weeks is stupid. Having to get another on its return is even more stupid.

>>Cons: I don't see how UBCs will have a big impact on crime. As I said above, I don't see them as a big problem for the honest regular folks, if they're reasonable. Without a big picture game plan on the part of the pro-control folks which excludes things such as registration, bans, onerous transfer BGCs and the like, a mandatory UBC law smacks of incremental style control and is viewed as the edge of the slippery slope.

I'm okay with a watch list, no-fly list, list of active investigations, etc. being grounds for certain restrictions, IF the individual's presence on the list is subject to judicial appeal and scrutiny. If the status of an individual is seriously and sufficiently problematic and requires secrecy and the need to classified beyond that appeal and scrutiny, the individual should be arrested and charged or deported.

Secret lists of legal residents/citizens + denial of rights = evil.

If you want to investigate someone because of "reasonable suspicion", good, that's a valid use of law enforcement. If they need to make a list of those folks, fine. If the only purpose to the extra-judicial list is the restriction of certain rights, they should go pound sand.

[gejohnston]

12. what I have to say, this guy says it better

https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/06/15/ethics-and-legal-dunces-hillary-clinton-and-everyone-else-who-is-suggesting-that-the-government-should-be-able-to-keep-someone-from-buying-a-gun-by-placing-them-on-a-no-fly-list/

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

13. + infinity

It's been 40 years since I last viewed that scene.
It says what needs to said.

Thanks for the link.

[pablo_marmol]

21. Outstanding, Mr. Johnston.

[Logical]

20. Except for collection of guns, which will never happen, nothing will stop mass shooters. Nt