How (the NRA helped) a Secretive Branch of ISIS Build a Global Network of Killers that is

It's not the guns that do damage, its the people who buy them.

Which really undermines their whole argument if they put some thought into it.

Including the Second Amendment. Not sure what the point is here - is the OP proposing that we institute a firearm ban? I'd actively oppose any politician who supported a firearm ban, as would the vast majority of Americans. So I guess my question is what is the proposed solution that doesn't violate the Second Amendment?

is intended to be amended and changed, that's the whole point of it.

I'm pro-constitution, all the way. Your position isn't 'pro-constitution', it's 'pro-guns rights'. There's a difference.

What violate? CHANGE the 2nd amendment. That's why it's called an amendment.

It's for the good of the people.

I think it's important to realize that the US is falling on her own sword by allowing the NRA to stack up the US citizens' dead body count for the sake of their own profits.

Unless you have other ideas on how to keep weapons in the USA out of the hands of psychotics who like to kill lots and lots of people. I'm open to hearing solutions that won't take 30 years to implement! What can be done right now?

And I agree that the Constitution can be amended and changed, I just don't think that any change that repeals the 2d Amendment, or makes it more restrictive is going to pass, nor is it something I would support. And I am "pro-Constitution" -- pro 1st Amendment, pro 2d Amendment, etc. But granted, I think that a person has the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, so in that sense I am pro-gun. I also think a person has the right to burn the American flag in protest or to be free from illegal searches and seizures. So yeah, I really do support the Constitution and more specifically the Bill of Rights.

I am not a NRA member or fan because they tend to blatantly support the Republican candidate, but the NRA isn't responsible for our gun laws or gun violence.

What can be done right now? There are literally hundreds of millions of guns in private hands in the US, so if you want to keep guns out of the hands of "psychotics" that is going to be tough. You could take the Trump approach and refuse to sell guns to Muslims, but that would be blatantly unconstitutional, and wouldn't address the folks like the Dallas or Louisiana shooters who targeted the police or the gangster who commits the day-to-day crimes. If we want to cut back on the day-to-day shootings that don't make national press but kill way more people than mass shootings then we need to get guns out of the hands of felons, and need to send those same felons to prison for a long time if they illegally possess guns.

They stifle laws that would make it easier to keep guns out of criminal hands. The biggest argument that's easily debunked is why states and cities with stricter gun laws, like Chicago, have higher crime rates than their counterparts.

Most guns recovered in Chicago crimes are often traced back to Indiana where it is much easier to buy a gun. The lack of nationally uniform gun laws, thanks to the NRA's lobbying efforts, is one of the leading causes to gun violence.

... some terrorist doesn't need to be on the inside if he can exploit system vulnerabilities from the outside to "hack" an American.

=============

Where's the NRA in the article?

that the boogeyman is never mentioned.

You also shouldn't notice that the article is about the success at infiltrating the EU but not the US

If ISIS using our gun laws to increase their ability to get weapons and ultimately use against US soldiers, we need to expose this.

So, ISIS takes advantage of the rights guaranteed/protected by the Constitution.

Wow... I guess they really do hate our freedom.

Gun control is a losing issue. Eliminating the 2nd amendment isn't going to happen. Even if it were eliminated, don't expect 1/3 of the population of the USA to bow down and turn in their firearms. I live in a very blue county. I offer firearms training. The vast majority of my students are Hispanic Democrats. The majority of firearms owners in my state are Hispanic Democrats. They are tired of the elitist, condescending attitude shown by many in our party towards firearms ownership. If push comes to shove, can you really afford to lose our votes?

far more lives than it saves is rather narcissistic. A bit like trump, actually. He's 'profiting' from fear. It's not working very well for him though, even the crazies are calling him crazy at this point.

The whole 'it's too big to change' is easy to say by those who are happy to keep exploiting the paranoid and lesser educated and vulnerable portion of the population. It's not true, however. Entire nations have changed their gun control laws very successfully.

It's always easier to be opposed to something. It takes guts to stand up for doing the right thing, and more people need to speak up to oppose the US gun culture.

Gun control is far from a losing issue, it's a critical, pivotal issue that is literally changing the face of the USA. It's not about 'getting rid' of the 2nd amendment, it's about changing an archaic 'law' that's being interpreted and abused for profit by gun manufacturers, dealers, and now, terrorists from the other side of the world who exploit the mentally ill psychotics -- and it's costing lives.

At this rate, anyone who's in the guns business should also get into the funeral home racket, that would be a double whammy win-win.

Firearms ownership deserves every negative attitude shown towards it. It has no place in a civilized world.

And I mean no offense or intend no personal affront.

Gee, what was I saying about an elitist and condescending attitude?

Most of my students are Hispanic college educated professionals. I've run several assistant district attorneys through my various classes. You need to dump the bigoted stereotype you have of firearms owners.

Those elitists really like to look down from upon "the great unwashed" from their ivory towers don't they?

who resort to using guns because they can't control themselves, and who are vulnerable to suggestion and fear mongering, rushing to walmart to buy duct tape and bigger guns because some whacko on a radio talk show tells them to.

When you look at gun ownership at a state level, it's evident that the wealthiest and most-educated states have the lowest rate of gun ownership. Combine that with the other data and the demographics of gun ownership become much more vivid: most guns are owned by poor, uneducated white people.

It's hardly elitist and condescening to acknowledge the reality of demographics. Your personal experience in capitalizing on the guns trade and industry is minute in the big picture; your business attracts a very specific demographic, trading on word of mouth and targeted advertising.

In the end, the reality is that suicides, mass murders, spree killing deaths and crippling, life changing injuries from the barrels of millions of guns are a catastrophic epidemic in the USA. It boggles the mind that while people have the power to stop this epidemic, they choose not to do so, but instead, encourage and inflame the rhetoric.

If you've got any suggestions on how to reduce or eliminate the 50,000+incidents of gun violence in the USA every year, other than implementing a complete ban on guns, I would love to hear the solution. So would those 50,000 people this year, and their families...

"Only recently, Richmond, Calif., had among America’s highest per capita rates of gun violence. In 2009, there were 47 homicides among 100,000 residents. Officials there theorized that a few bad actors caused most of the problem. As it turned out, 70 percent of their gun violence in 2008 was caused by fewer than 1 percent of the city’s residents. This isn’t unique: in Cincinnati, less than 1 percent of the city’s population was responsible for 74 percent of homicides in 2007.

Richmond developed an innovative, controversial program: They identified the 50 people most likely to shoot someone and engaged with them, even paying them to participate.

The city provided career help, training, resume writing and health care. It asked people what they feared and helped them create plans to mitigate those fears.

Critics called it “paying gang members not to shoot people.” It was more than that. And it worked.

From 2007 to 2012, the city experienced a 61 percent reduction in homicides. It turned out that the money was nowhere near as important as people had thought — people still show up to the meetings even though no one is paying them anymore. The interventions steered potential killers onto a better path."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/14/forget-new-gun-laws-heres-what-could-really-keep-people-from-shooting-each-other/

Also has some stats on "demographics" on who is "using guns" to commit violence.

Similarly, Chicago has a list with 1400 people responsible for 70-80% of the gun violence. "They just need the state legislators and juducial partners to hold them responsible.".


"In a city of 2.7 million people, about 1,400 are responsible for much of the violence, Mr. Johnson said, and all of them are on what the department calls its Strategic Subject List.

So far this year, more than 70 percent of the people who have been shot in Chicago were on the list, according to the police, as were more than 80 percent of those arrested in connection with shootings."

“We are targeting the correct individuals,” Mr. Johnson said. “We just need our judicial partners and our state legislators to hold these people accountable.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/us/armed-with-data-chicago-police-try-to-predict-who-may-shoot-or-be-shot.html

Every step in the right direction really matters.

How does this gun ban thing work? What about the existing ones? I mean, you could go door-to-door and say "Guns are illegal now! Give us all your guns so we can melt them down and make friendship bracelets out of them!", and many people would comply.

Those are the people who probably would not be a problem.

But some people will say, "I don't have any guns!". Most will be telling the truth, some will be lying. How do you tell the difference? Should it be alright to search houses that some combination of prior record and/or educated hunch indicate might have firearms present?

And, if on these searches, they find other contraband such as drugs or child pornography - should they be allowed to at least confiscate it, and perhaps launch criminal charges?

And would these warrantless (excuse me, auto-warrant) searches be conducted in areas that have high rates of violence, such as Chicago, Detroit, Newark, Baltimore, etc.?

that most recently banned unchecked and rampant gun ownership; Australia.

(there was no door to door search in Australia, BTW)

First, start with a Guns Buy-Back program. Fund the buy-back through a one time cost increase of a particular program.

In the state of Victoria, figures show Victorians have handed in 18,814 guns to be destroyed — easily exceeding the Victorian Government's prediction that 10,000 guns would be given up. 15,184 replacement pistols were imported. The buyback is a joint initiative by the federal and state governments. Victorians have handed in more guns than shooters in any other state, 40% of the 46,072 weapons collected nationwide. Shooters have also handed in 228,063 gun parts.

Almost $60 million compensation has been paid nationwide.
One government policy was to compensate shooters for giving up the sport. Approximately 25% of pistol shooters took this offer, and relinquished their licences and their right to own pistols for sport for five years; in Victoria it is estimated 1/3 of people surrendering firearms took this option. (wikipedia)

Then there's gun amnesties as a follow up;

In New South Wales there have been three gun amnesties in 2001, 2003 and 2009. 63,000 handguns were handed in during the first two amnesties and over 4,323 handguns were handed in during the third amnesty. During the third amnesty 21,615 firearm registrations were received by the Firearms Registry. The surrendered firearms were all destroyed.

The US saw a significant reduction in guns violence during the tenure of the assault weapons ban; it was effective.

Creating stronger laws, rock solid enforcement for registration and ownership, including specific age limits and criminal and mental welfare checks, would in the very least be a HUGE step in the right direction. I really don't see why it's such a big deal to create reasonable laws and expect people to comply with them, when it's for the benefit of the general public.

incarcerations, etc. Good news is gun violence has continued to trend down for 11years after it expired.

The federal AWB REALLY was for the most part a cosmetic ban...(the top was legal to purchase new, the bottom one wasn't)


And the magazine capacity limit, that might have been effective, wasn't because WAY too many original mags, built before '94, were readily available. Yes the prices went up, but there was no shortage, especially gov't issue mags for M16, AK, M9 etc.

And now the dam things are more popular then ever before.

Without more inclusiveness, registration, and limits on transfers and possession, a ban like '94s is just about useless, and a more substantial ban's best bet (if it allows grandfathering) is attrition...and more compliance is needed (NY & CT currently).

or it should be. Just his one statement about ISIS almost laughing at us because guns are so easy to get in the US they don't even need a special channel for getting weapons. Devastating! But will the media actually report on it as has Rachel and will she be allowed to go further? Probably not. But a super pac might.

there have been some interesting examples in this thread ofsuccessful programs dealing with violent offenders

BUT....they'll be USELESS against the insane ISIS targets

how to deal with them?

and even if ALL gun sales stop tomorrow, how many guns are there in the US?

that's the really scary stat.

and tell the terrorist to fuck off...

surprised that Germany has been central to the infiltration of the EU by terrorists. There was like no security at the airport. I got my passport out and they weren't even interested in looking at it. They just waived people through. I was rather horrified because I remember the plane that went down in Lockerbie and I believe the bomb was put on that plane in Germany. Flying back out, I didn't see a great deal of security either.

...and a GD policy.

someone want to give up their guns.



Or not.


"...we don’t need to have no contact man who has to provide guns for them.”

So either they buy their own, or someone will provide them.


"After gunning down dozens of concertgoers, two of the suicide bombers retreated into a hallway with a group of hostages, ..."

Yeah - I think No.