CNN immediately claims Manhattan shooter was WHITE

[hadit]

Thread title is a lie. There is nothing to retract. Possibly white, possibly middle eastern, possibly black. Yet I only see the usual thin skinned baby wypipo crying about it.

1. If they didn't see any photo of the shooter and have no idea of his ethnicity, they have no business trying to influence public opinion one way or the other.
2. If they saw a photo of the shooter and continued to say he was possibly white, they have no clue what they are talking about and they have no business trying to influence public opinion one way or the other.
3. If they do not know, why "possibly white" when they could have said, "possibly black", "possibly Asian", etc.? If they are going to single out white when they literally have no idea, they have no business trying to influence public opinion one way or the other.

The bottom line remains, they were trying to influence public opinion, not report on the incident.

 

[JoeB131]

Let me help you be more specific. All we have to do is add a HIPPA waiver to the background check form 4473 so medical records can be examined. Then if we see Psychosis, bi polar DO, Anti social personality DO or major depression, they are rejected. We can also add that the FBI must then interview the person. That puts us one step ahead

I agree with all of that.

So you support voter ID laws then?

No.

When you can kill someone with a vote, you can get back to me.

 

[hadit]

My understanding is pretty clear. For most of our history, the understanding of "Well-Regulated Militia" allowed for common sense gun laws.

Until the National Rampage Association realized that crazy people were their best customers.

It is withing living memory that:

1. Teachers and kids could bring a gun with them to school, leave it in their car or truck and drive home with it. No school shootings.
2. Kids could take shooting courses in school with live ammunition. No school shootings.
3. You could order a firearm out of a catalog and have it and ammo delivered to your house through the postal service. No school shootings.

Is it easier or more difficult to get firearms today than it was back then? I say more difficult, yet we have many, many more school, mall, and public gathering shootings than we did. Something changed, and trying to address those issues by restricting access to firearms by law abiding citizens is like putting a band-aid on a cancer tumor, you'll only mask the real problem for a time. You might make yourself feel good for a bit but won't cure the cancer.

 

[DonGlock26]

I agree with all of that.



No.

When you can kill someone with a vote, you can get back to me.

So pages of proof to buy a gun but no ID to vote?

 

[JoeB131]

It is withing living memory that:

1. Teachers and kids could bring a gun with them to school, leave it in their car or truck and drive home with it. No school shootings.

That's kind of like saying, "We could board an airplane with no security checks before 1960".

Or Ships didn't need lifeboats before the Titanic.

Is it easier or more difficult to get firearms today than it was back then? I say more difficult, yet we have many, many more school, mall, and public gathering shootings than we did. Something changed, and trying to address those issues by restricting access to firearms by law abiding citizens is like putting a band-aid on a cancer tumor, you'll only mask the real problem for a time. You might make yourself feel good for a bit but won't cure the cancer.

Here's what changed.

In these "before times", the gun shop owner was a member of the community. He didn't see Crazy Bob on the Hill as a prime customer who wanted to own 25 military grade rifles so he could fight the government at some point.

You see, there was a change in gun ownership. Back in the 1970s, hunting fell out of fashion with the public. So the gun industry needed a new market, and lo and behold, there were the crazy people.

 

[hadit]

That's kind of like saying, "We could board an airplane with no security checks before 1960".

We sure could, and planes didn't change.

Or Ships didn't need lifeboats before the Titanic.

And we're now figuring out that we don't have to make people take their shoes off to get on a plane anymore.

Here's what changed.

In these "before times", the gun shop owner was a member of the community. He didn't see Crazy Bob on the Hill as a prime customer who wanted to own 25 military grade rifles so he could fight the government at some point.

Sure, sure he was. Until 1993 you could buy a firearm from the Sears catalog and have it shipped through the postal service to your house. What "member of the community" was checking to make sure black citizens were not getting firearms?

You see, there was a change in gun ownership. Back in the 1970s, hunting fell out of fashion with the public. So the gun industry needed a new market, and lo and behold, there were the crazy people.

Something you believe without evidence. Here's a hint, there are far fewer crazy people to buy guns than there are hunters. Here's your homework assignment, produce advertising from gun manufacturers that is aimed at getting crazy people to buy guns.

 

[hadit]

So pages of proof to buy a gun but no ID to vote?

Some would say the vote is more powerful than the gun.

 

[JoeB131]

Sure, sure he was. Until 1993 you could buy a firearm from the Sears catalog and have it shipped through the postal service to your house. What "member of the community" was checking to make sure black citizens were not getting firearms?

Actually, mail order firearms were restricted after JFK was killed as part of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Something you believe without evidence. Here's a hint, there are far fewer crazy people to buy guns than there are hunters. Here's your homework assignment, produce advertising from gun manufacturers that is aimed at getting crazy people to buy guns.

50% of the firearms in this country are owned by 3% of the population.



As for advertising to the crazies, we've been over that.

“Papa Says It’s Safe”: 20 Astounding Gun Ads

The firearms industry sure knows how to tempt its audience.

www.motherjones.com

 

[j-mac]

Well, I'd do a couple.

First, I'd repeal the PLCAA. Betcha the gun sellers won't be so keen to sell to crazy people if they can be held liable.

The manufacturer isn’t liable for the end purchaser’s mental health. That’s unreasonable.

Secondly, I'd require real background checks.

I had to submit pages and pages of documents when I

1) Applied for my current job.
2) Applied for my current mortgage
3) Sponsored my wife for residency

Forget that I have a 45 year working history, including military service.
Or that I had an 825 Credit Score
Or that my wife had already been a legal resident for 7 years before I married her.

But when I applied for an Illinois FOID card, I just had to pay $11.00 and fill out a form promising I wasn't a crook or a crazy person.

We have background checks now…

 

[g5000]

If he's willing to break laws, how would a federal law stop him from putting a rifle in a trunk and driving to NYC?

A federal law would prevent him from acquiring an AR-15.

 

[g5000]

The manufacturer isn’t liable for the end purchaser’s mental health. That’s unreasonable.

We have background checks now…

Since the shooter had a concealed carry permit, Nevada did not do a background check on the shooter.

 

[hadit]

Actually, mail order firearms were restricted after JFK was killed as part of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

You could order from the catalog, have it shipped to your nearest Sears store and pick it up from there. Sears carried firearms in their catalog until 1993.

50% of the firearms in this country are owned by 3% of the population.

Which is meaningless when you consider the tiny number of crazies who end up shooting people compared to the vast numbers of safe, responsible gun owners who never shoot anyone. Now you just need to convince everyone that the mass shooters come from that 3% of the population, if you think that's significant.

As for advertising to the crazies, we've been over that.

“Papa Says It’s Safe”: 20 Astounding Gun Ads

The firearms industry sure knows how to tempt its audience.

www.motherjones.com

1. That's not advertising to crazies, it's simply advertising. Nowhere in that panting (motherjones, of course) article was anything advocating someone use their product to kill innocent human beings.

You face an impossible task trying to convince everyone that gun manufacturers looked around one day and said, "Hey, sales to hunters are slipping. I know, let's market to psychopathic mass murderers. There have to be enough millions out there to more than replace the loss of hunters, right?"

 

[Edgetho]

He violated laws already in place. What makes you think more laws would have stopped him from killing those people and himself?

To scum of he Earth dimocrap FILTH, the real crime wasn't the murders, it was buying a gun.

 

[j-mac]

Since the shooter had a concealed carry permit, Nevada did not do a background check on the shooter.

You have no clue what you’re talking about

 

[DonGlock26]

A federal law would prevent him from acquiring an AR-15.

What law would that be?

 

[DonGlock26]

Some would say the vote is more powerful than the gun.

Indeed. These are the same progressives who put the defense of the nation into the hands of a mentally ill president Biden.

 

[airplanemechanic]

This just demonstrates typical negro violence.

 

[JoeB131]

The manufacturer isn’t liable for the end purchaser’s mental health. That’s unreasonable.

If they knowingly are marketing to bad people, then, yes, they are.

Just like the Cigarette companies were found liable after it was found they were intentionally marketing to minors.

Let's get a look at the Gun Industry's records, they knew what they were doing.

We have background checks now…

Not effective ones.

I can give you a whole list of mass shooters who had no business getting a gun, and if someone had done a background check they wouldn't have.

Nicholas Cruz
James "Joker" Holmes
Seung-Hui Cho
Robert Crimo III
John Mohammed

Even a cursory look into their backgrounds would have red flagged them.

 

[j-mac]

If they knowingly are marketing to bad people, then, yes, they are.

Just like the Cigarette companies were found liable after it was found they were intentionally marketing to minors.

Let's get a look at the Gun Industry's records, they knew what they were doing.

Ok, you show me where and how gun sellers are actively marketing to the mentally ill…go.

Not effective ones.

I can give you a whole list of mass shooters who had no business getting a gun, and if someone had done a background check they wouldn't have.

Nicholas Cruz
James "Joker" Holmes
Seung-Hui Cho
Robert Crimo III
John Mohammed

Even a cursory look into their backgrounds would have red flagged them.

Ok, do you even know how the background check system works? What’s flawed, and how would you change it?

 

[JoeB131]

Ok, you show me where and how gun sellers are actively marketing to the mentally ill…go.

I did that in post 128.

This is why I don't normally do links. You guys don't read them.

Ok, do you even know how the background check system works? What’s flawed, and how would you change it?

Well, I've given several examples of other fields where it works just fine.

For instance, when I applied for my current job, they checked my credit history, confirmed my past employment, called a former boss and several coworkers to get recommendations, and made me piss in a bottle to make sure I wasn't on illicit substances. And they did this twice, once when I was under a temp-to-hire contract and again when I was brought on full time.

I recently sponsored my wife for residency. We both underwent thorough background checks, had to submit 200 pages of documentation, and she had to undergo a medical exam. We both had to submit testimonials about our relationship, they fingerprinted her. And we had to provide pictures of us together over the course of our relationship. Now, this was despite the fact that she had already been granted a green card under political asylum and had been living here for 7 years.

When I applied for my mortgage, despite having a credit score north of 800, I had to submit my tax returns for the last three years, financials on my business, all my credit card accounts, etc. Forget that I had a mortgage for 17 years which I regularly paid on and another that I paid off over 13 years.

When I applied for a FOID Card. Paid them $11.00. Sent them a picture. Filled out one form. Laughed hysterically when some ammosexual tells me how tough the gun laws in Illinois are.