DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Mass Shootings Continued..

Are you claiming that illegal immigration is because of the Republicans? Are you denying that criminals will ever NOT be able to get guns? Come on, man. Don't let Pit and 888 influence you w/their twisting of my words and questions. They are here to silence the opposition and to ridicule and bully anyone who does not agree w/them. Surely, that has proven to be obvious to anyone who has followed along over time.

To be clear.......I am not blaming the Democrats. I just think it is foolish to blame the Republicans when an "illegal immigrant" obtains a gun illegally. That's not hard to understand.

I can't stand the left and the right. Both sides are terrible. I battle the Right where appropriate. It's just that on this board, the Left rules w/an iron hand. They constantly attack anyone who doesn't buy in w/their one-sided beliefs. If you want to be a part of that......fine. But, I am absolute that furthering the divide by taking sides and not looking at things objectively while ignoring the facts of each case is wrong. I'll stand by that, even if they suspend me again for speaking my mind.

And there is no system in place to do so. You cannot do a background check on a private sale. The system does not allow it.

Because the NRA and their congressional cronies won’t allow the feds to put a system in place to do that.

That is an interesting take and not one that I have seen validated. But I am sure it is yet another knee jerk "GOPERS!!!!" type response.

I will say that I think background checks should be done on all gun sales. I think the laws should be strengthened. I don't think people w/a violent criminal record or those who have been diagnosed w/mental health issues should be able to buy guns. None of that is my issue w/those on the left. My issue is how they say foolish, biased things and then try to justify them. It only serves to widen the divide and that is the last thing we need.

It is obvious that people who cannot pass a background check still buy guns. They do so without a background check. Allowing people to do them for private sale would help, but criminals will commit crimes regardless of laws.

Agreed. Criminals always find ways to commit crimes.

No, Illegal immigration is not because of Republicans. Probably as much blame on the Democrats on that issue, as it has been a partisan hot potato for the past 15 years or so…

No, laws won’t prevent criminals from getting a gun.. But that is like saying there should not be a law against murder, theft, robbery, drugs or any other bad act, because the law will be violated.. it is pretzel logic, twisted.

Laws are made for the benefit of all. We can agree or disagree on the laws and punishment, but that does not preclude their necessity in a civil society.

Regarding Pit and 888, I think my own thoughts, and have done so since I was 16. I may share positions with them, but I can also disagree on either content or approach. I have always considered myself more of a pragmatist or moderate and there are those who probably think the Right rules the board.

That said, my opinion about guns has become more firm as we bear witness to more mass shootings and my frustration with the lack of a legislative response by our political representatives and leaders.

I agree with you on background checks..

I have no problem w/your thoughts and opinions. I just think that Pit intentionally turned my comments on what Daman said into something else immediately. This happens often around here. And again, I don't like either party. I used to go tooth and nail w/guys like Vambo, 40, etc and they were far right. I despise folks like Rush Limbaugh. I think taking sides is ignorant. I think working to divide our nation is harmful. I think we should work together despite our individual beliefs and ideals. I get on the left on this board because they dominate the conversation w/insults, whataboutisms, false accusations, bullying, and lies. All under the protection of at least one moderator.

Edit: Let me add that in the case of the immigrant who murdered five people in Texas.......I believe that the blame doesn't go to one party or the other. It appears that he is a terrible human being and should be judged for what he is w/out blaming a political party for his sins.

It is common to report how/when the gun used for mass shootings was purchased.

The fact that the purchase was illegal due to the citizenship status of the murderer became a GOP talking point. First Abbott, then National Review and probably has been the narrative in conservative media. It deflects from the core issue (another mass shooting with an AR style rifle) until time passes and or we move on the the next event (Oklahoma).

The you can't stop a criminal with a gun, because "they can always get one" is one reason why we should have stronger laws, not an excuse for keeping the status quo.

See, I told you he wouldn't accept the actual answer. The fact is to legally purchase a gun from an actual gun dealer, you have to fill out a form. It's not a simple matter of the dealer running a background check. That's a fact the Frank seems to leave out. For a reason i might add. I mean if he if he were being honest he knows the vast majority of private sales would not involve someone walking around a gun show with a laptop having people fill out forms that are required to buy a weapon from a gun dealer unless it was mandated by law. And Vers doesn't like the message so his typical response is to shoot the messenger. Of course nobody is going to prevent all murders. Of course criminals will still commit crimes. So when you point out measures that may very well help reduce murders or some drunk from having an assault rifle and killing five of his neighbors he'll act like it's you who are changing the narrative. Does any of that surprise you?

I wasn't making an excuse. I was stating a fact. Once again, I have no problem w/stricter gun laws. I have a problem w/folks trying to make this issue a political one. It's a societal problem. But, keep on keepin' on.

No he understands, but thanks for your spin and lies. It's like you can't help yourself.

I also understand that most illegal guns sales do not happen at gun shows, they happen between people that know each other or are connected. Allowing private sales to run background checks helps people trying to do the right thing while balancing freedom. Nothing is going to coerce people to do the right thing if they are bound to break the law.

What evidence do you have that most private gun sales "happen between people that know each other or are connected."? And selling weapons at a gun show or anywhere from one private citizen to another private citizen without a background check isn't "illegal".


They aren't "breaking the law" to sell guns to people without a background check and wouldn't be doing so if such background checks weren't "required". Your idea of freedumb is allowing the exact same things to be legal as they are now.

Guns are a political issue, there is no way around that fact. You can't wish it away.

I think his use of illegal was a legal private sale where the purchaser may not be legally allowed to purchase, but the seller has no way ow knowing or verifying that. At least that's how I took it from the conversation.

Which actually brings me back to how the law is structured. In such a case the purchase of the gun is illegal, but the selling of the gun is not. Because the seller is not required to make sure the purchaser has the legal right to buy the gun.

And then on top of all of that, if it would remain legal not to do a background check, why would anyone think it was "the wrong thing" to sell a gun without a background check and think the "right thing to do" would be to do a background check? The claim was that it "helps people trying to do the right thing". Since when is doing something legal "the wrong thing" in the eyes of most people?

It is illegal to sell a gun, private sale or otherwise, to a prohibited person. Allowing people to verify who they are selling to helps mitigate that for people who want to do the right thing. It does not for the people who don't care to star with.

Doing something that's legal isn't doing anything wrong. Unless of course your claim is following the law is wrong? And it would have to be proven the seller knew that the person they were selling the gun to was not legally able to purchase a gun. Unless you can prove they knew each other and the seller knew the purchaser was an illegal or convicted convict there would be no case.

The topic of the thread is Mass Murders. Look, you are looking at this w/blinders on. Ignoring all the other factors that lead to mass murders and suicides and narrowing it down to just guns is too ignorant of a topic for me to continue discussing w/you. You can get a last word in, but I'm moving on.

Mass shootings, not mass killings. When many of the very things that may be able to cut down in mass shootings are without any doubt fought along political lines, trying to shout down those pointing that out isn't conducive to the topic. Of course there are other factors such as mental health care or the lack of it as the case may be. But you do realize that politicians control spending, correct? That without the political will to address spending to rebuild our mental healthcare system there will be nothing that can be done about it. So as much as you may hate it, almost every avenue to help reduce mass shootings has a political element to it.

And one issue that some seem to not mention is not only must politicians approve the funding to rebuild our mental healthcare system, how long would it take to accomplish such a mission? 10 years? 20 years? Some of us think there are more immediate measures that can go along with that to help reduce those numbers now. But once again, from one side there's no political will to do so.

Doing something illegally isn't doing something legally. Not all crimes require men's rea.

Of course with no back ground check one could argue they couldn't know it wasn't OK to sell a gun to a specific someone, which seems to be where you want this. You really seem to be against allowing background checks.

I'm for mandated background checks. Not "You can do them if you want to" background checks.

It's not about "where I want this." It's about where it is. Unless law enforcement can prove beyond a reasonable doubt you sold a gun knowingly to someone that was purchasing it illegally, they have no case. Some voluntary measure that will not solve this issue isn't an answer.

Mandated background checks but individual sales can't use em. Someone else trying to ban things.

It surprises me that no one has ever been convicted of illegally selling guns like this.

Individual sales should not only be allowed to do such background checks but should be compelled to by law. Of course that means a lot of people will have to bring their laptops to gun shows.

But they can't do the checks. There is no mechanism for it. This is what I have been saying over and over that have been fighting.

NICS checks can be done via a phone call as well, or just an app on a phone would work.

There is a requirement for the purchaser to fill out paperwork by filling out a form included in the current background check requirements. And I'm saying that there should be a mechanism in place for it and as such it should be mandated. The only thing I can figure out we are disagreeing on here is that I think it should be mandated and you don't.

I do understand that the 4473 form is required when purchasing from a FFL. It is filed by the FFL along with their information.

I onto think individual sellers need the overhead. A quick version would suffice, and if selling to a prohibited person is a strict liability crime most of your issues are addressed without government mandates.

People being killed isn't a "liability crime". Selling to a convicted criminal or illegal should be an aiding and abetting issue.

Tell me you don't know what a strict liability crime is without telling me you don't know what a strict liability crime is.

Strict liability crimes do not require men's rea.

1 dead, at least 4 injured in Atlanta shooting this afternoon.

Bang, bang
Splish, splash
Thoughts, prayers
Rinse/repeat.

Please tell me you can't comprehend that by selling a weapon to a known criminal you have aided and abetted them in crimes they commit with the gun you sold him illegally.

Your response continues to avoid what I suggested so you can say things.

What if you don't know? How is it proven you did know? Making this a strict liability means that doesn't matter. Aiding and abetting would require men's rea, you have to prove you intended to aid the crime. You are trying to be too clever.

No I'm simply saying that if these background checks were mandated you would know of a criminals background. It's your "voluntary" background checks that create the ambiguity and deniability here. The exact same principal would apply in civil suits. You can't be held accountable for something you didn't know unless you either did not follow the law or ignore the findings if you do ignore the law. If there is no law requiring you to do a background check you had no idea you sold a weapon to a convicted criminal or illegal.

The background checks are all voluntary. People who won't do them won't do them. If you make selling a gun to a prohibited person a strict liability crime then it doesn't matter if you know you broke the law. That is the point. When a criminal sells a gun to another criminal they aren't going to do the background check. They can still be charged and convicted of it, regardless of intent.

Making this aiding and abetting you still have to prove they knew the crime they aided (that would be the murder, not the sale) was going to happen.

If a background check was mandatory everyone who sells a weapon with no background check could not be absolved of committing a crime. None of them could be absolved of aiding aiding and abetting.

I mean I suppose in some abstract way you might be correct. I mean I suppose you could say the choice not to commit murder, rob a bank or any other crime people choose not to commit is voluntary. Yet that doesn't prevent them from being criminal offenses.

He's still at large.

If background checks are mandatory that would not mean that you are an accessory to murder. This is an established process and you would need to knowingly enable murder. "Sell me the gun, I just want to protect myself" and boom, no aiding and abetting. Sell a gun to a prohibited person, whether you know they are or not, and you can be charged if that is a strict liability crime. Give people the option of checking backgrounds, it is up to them to follow through. this covers things pretty well.

EUROPE
A student and his father are detained after 9 die in school shooting in Serbia

Updated May 3, 202311:21 AM ET
By
Rob Schmitz
Bill Chappell




A teenage boy opened fire at a school in the Serbian capital of Belgrade on Wednesday, killing eight students and a school security guard, according to police. Another six children and a teacher were wounded and are receiving hospital care.

Serbia has declared three days of national mourning over the tragedy.

Authorities say they received a call about the shooting at Vladislav Ribnikar Elementary School around 8:40 a.m. local time. Police arrested the suspect, a seventh-grade student born in 2009, saying he used his father's gun to shoot at students and staff at the school.


In an update, police said the suspect, identified only by his initials, K.K., called them from the school minutes after the violence was reported. They also said he apparently planned his actions well in advance, and had written a list of children he wanted to kill.

Because the suspect is 13, he is too young to be held criminally responsible, the prosecutor's office in Belgrade said, according to public broadcaster RTS.

Citing his status as a minor, the news outlet added, prosecutors ordered the student's father to be detained on suspicion of crimes against general security.


The suspect called police after the shooting
The slain students include seven girls and one boy, Belgrade Police Chief Veselin Milić said, according to the N1 TV news channel.



Milić also displayed an image of a handwritten paper, listing students the suspect wanted to target, along with a sketch of the school's layout. The attack was likely planned at least a month in advance, he said.

The first call to police from the school came from its deputy principal, reporting the violence — but Milić said a second call came from the suspect himself, who told police he had just shot several people. By then, the suspect had gone to the schoolyard to wait for officers to arrive.

Video footage from the scene showed a commotion outside the primary school in central Belgrade as police removed the suspect, his head covered as officers led him to a car.

The student's father is also detained
Police detained the suspect's father after the school shooting, Interior Minister Bratislav Gašić said.

Officers found the suspect had two pistols with him, weapons that were registered to his father, Gašić said, according to the Danas news site.

When police visited the suspect's home, they found a safe that his father said was used to hold the firearms. But his son apparently knew the combination; the pair had also reportedly gone to the shooting range together.


Under Serbia's gun laws, citizens and permanent residents must meet several requirements in order to own a gun. In addition to registering their weapon, they must undergo training in handling firearms and obtain a certificate of their medical fitness. They must also store guns securely, and give valid reasons to justify owning them.

3 days of national mourning are declared
Serbia's government has declared three days of national mourning over the tragedy in Belgrade, Minister of Education Branko Ružić announced. The period would allow families to say farewell to their loved ones in peace, he said, and he also urged Serbians to use the time to think about how to prevent similar tragedies.



The Vladislav Ribnikar school is in the Vračar district, an area known for its museums, churches and other historic buildings, including Serbia's national library.

Mass shootings in Serbia are rare, but authorities have repeatedly warned the public about a number of weapons left over in the country after war in the region in the 1990s.

Serbia ranks in the top five countries worldwide in the number of guns owned by civilians per capita, according to research that the Small Arms Survey research group published in 2018. While nearly 1.2 million firearms are registered in Serbia, more than 1.5 million are not, the group said.

https://www.npr.org/2023/05/03/1173619783/belgrade-school-shooting

Who controls what the system will and will not allow? If the system doesn't currently allow it, change the system.