• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Police respond to an active shooter in Aurora, Ill., with ‘multiple people, multiple officers down'

Re: Police respond to an active shooter in Aurora, Ill., with ‘multiple people, multiple officers

Atomic Kid said:
Yeah, well apparently they aren't being enforced properly.

Shooter in Aurora, Illinois, manufacturing plant wasn'''t legally allowed to own gun

"Shooter in Aurora, Illinois, manufacturing plant wasn't legally allowed to own gun
Police are investigating why Martin never relinquished his firearm after it was discovered he had an aggravated assault felony on his record."
Click to expand...

There’s no enforcement mechanism for this.

How does anyone know he owns a gun? Or two? Or three hundred?
 
Threegoofs said:
Let’s find out where all the guns are and make people responsible for them.
Click to expand...

How does making people responsible for their guns stop gun violence?
 
Re: Police respond to an active shooter in Aurora, Ill., with ‘multiple people, multiple officers

Threegoofs said:
There’s no enforcement mechanism for this.

How does anyone know he owns a gun? Or two? Or three hundred?
Click to expand...

Did you read the article? If you did you either missed or ignored the information about Police knowing he had purchased a gun, they sent him a letter stating he needed to relinquish the gun once his Concealed Carry permit flagged him as not being allowed to own a gun. Illinois requires a special card to purchase a gun that requires a background check. It appears law enforcement didn’t properly record his 1995 felony conviction on agervated assault. What is unclear is if the police actually followed up making sure he get follow their instructions and either sell or surrender his firearm. As without other cases the police not properly doing their job resulted in putting the public in danger.
 
Re: Police respond to an active shooter in Aurora, Ill., with ‘multiple people, multiple officers

Atomic Kid said:
Yeah, well apparently they aren't being enforced properly.

Shooter in Aurora, Illinois, manufacturing plant wasn'''t legally allowed to own gun

"Shooter in Aurora, Illinois, manufacturing plant wasn't legally allowed to own gun
Police are investigating why Martin never relinquished his firearm after it was discovered he had an aggravated assault felony on his record."
Click to expand...

Looks like the laws on the books failed.
His CC was denied. His FOID revoked. But he still had a gun.

Someone ****ed up royally despite the state have strict gun regs.
I expect Governor Prickster and his boyfriend Mikey Madigan to hit us with more tyrannical-style guns laws because of this.
 
Chillfolks said:
Did you read the article? If you did you either missed or ignored the information about Police knowing he had purchased a gun, they sent him a letter stating he needed to relinquish the gun once his Concealed Carry permit flagged him as not being allowed to own a gun. Illinois requires a special card to purchase a gun that requires a background check. It appears law enforcement didn’t properly record his 1995 felony conviction on agervated assault. What is unclear is if the police actually followed up making sure he get follow their instructions and either sell or surrender his firearm. As without other cases the police not properly doing their job resulted in putting the public in danger.
Click to expand...

How do they know he has only one gun?

How do you know he didn’t sell it?

The enforcement on this is pointless. ‘I sold it to my brother last week’. ‘I sold it to some guy who sells them at gun shows’. ‘It was rusty so I threw it out’.
 
Re: Police respond to an active shooter in Aurora, Ill., with ‘multiple people, multiple officers

Threegoofs said:
There’s no enforcement mechanism for this.

How does anyone know he owns a gun? Or two? Or three hundred?
Click to expand...

There is no way. That's the whole point!

That brings us back to the adage: when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

You can force law abiding citizens to register their guns. You can even confiscate their guns. Neither of those will do anything to stop criminals from committing gun crimes.

Disarming law abiding citizens will enable more crime.
 
Re: Police respond to an active shooter in Aurora, Ill., with ‘multiple people, multiple officers

Roadvirus said:
Looks like the laws on the books failed.
His CC was denied. His FOID revoked. But he still had a gun.

Someone ****ed up royally despite the state have strict gun regs.
I expect Governor Prickster and his boyfriend Mikey Madigan to hit us with more tyrannical-style guns laws because of this.
Click to expand...

No. The laws are inherently unenforceable.

They could be strengthened, but the gun nuts won’t allow it.

A revoked Illinois firearms license rarely means you lose your guns - Chicago Tribune

The police don’t have the manpower, and don’t know how many guns the guy may or may not have.

A proposed change in the law would have required police to seize guns in such cases, but the bill died last year after gun rights groups objected and police said that they didn't have enough officers to check on more than 50,000 revoked FOID cards statewide.
Click to expand...
 
Threegoofs said:
How do they know he has only one gun?

How do you know he didn’t sell it?

The enforcement on this is pointless. ‘I sold it to my brother last week’. ‘I sold it to some guy who sells them at gun shows’. ‘It was rusty so I threw it out’.
Click to expand...

I get it you’re for a registration and ignore the failures of law enforcement in this case. I’m not going to play the “but but what if game” with an individual that holds the idiotic position of an inanimate object is somehow to blame for people committing violent acts. You claim it’s time to know who owns guns then prove there is no possible way to do it because people may not be truthful. In arguing with me you’ve proven your own idea can not work.
 
Chillfolks said:
I get it you’re for a registration and ignore the failures of law enforcement in this case. I’m not going to play the “but but what if game” with an individual that holds the idiotic position of an inanimate object is somehow to blame for people committing violent acts. You claim it’s time to know who owns guns then prove there is no possible way to do it because people may not be truthful. In arguing with me you’ve proven your own idea can not work.
Click to expand...

It’s not a ‘failure’.

It’s the inability to do the task that you want, because you don’t want them to get the ability to do the task.

Do you want them to search the house to find firearms? Is that OK with you?
 
Threegoofs said:
It’s not a ‘failure’.

It’s the inability to do the task that you want, because you don’t want them to get the ability to do the task.

Do you want them to search the house to find firearms? Is that OK with you?
Click to expand...

If they have a warrant I see no issue, however without a warrant no way in hell should anyone allow police to search their persons or property. Nor should a search be a prerequisite to exercise ones rights.


And if they didn’t follow up it most certainly is a failure
 
Last edited:
Chillfolks said:
If they have a warrant I see no issue, however without a warrant no way in hell should anyone allow police to search their persons or property. Nor should a search be a prerequisite to exercise ones rights.


And if they didn’t follow up it most certainly is a failure
Click to expand...

So you just want them to ask and trust the guy to tell the truth.

And it’s fine with you to divert thousands of man hours per year into doing this.

Do you think this guy would have told the truth and surrendered his gun if asked? He was asked once via letter, BTW.
 
Threegoofs said:
So you just want them to ask and trust the guy to tell the truth.

And it’s fine with you to divert thousands of man hours per year into doing this.

Do you think this guy would have told the truth and surrendered his gun if asked? He was asked once via letter, BTW.
Click to expand...

Dang, cuz. You continue to admit the law isn't working, but you won't propose a solution.
 
Threegoofs said:
So you just want them to ask and trust the guy to tell the truth.


And it’s fine with you to divert thousands of man hours per year into doing this.
Click to expand...

If the police have probable cause to believe someone is lying then present that to a judge who will issue a warrant if he agrees. Do you not understand how our constitution and legal system works?
[/quote]
Do you think this guy would have told the truth and surrendered his gun if asked? He was asked once via letter, BTW.[/QUOTE]
I think that a minimal amount of follow up would of answered this question like:

Cop: Sir did you sell you get surrender or sell your weapon? If so do you have any documentation?
Bad Guy: Piss off pig
Cop: Thank you have a nice day.

Cop goes to judge gets warrant to search property and takes action if nessecary.

What is your solution?
 
Re: Police respond to an active shooter in Aurora, Ill., with ‘multiple people, multiple officers

apdst said:
Looks that way. Huh?

If they can't enforce the laws that are already on the books, what's the point of making more laws?

If someone is too dangerous to own a gun, he is too dangerous to be on the street and should be in jail, instead.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's some ****ing brilliant logic there. :roll: If law were changed to include fingerprints in the application process for a Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) Card then the gun likely never would have been sold to him the first place. Right?
 
Re: Police respond to an active shooter in Aurora, Ill., with ‘multiple people, multiple officers

Atomic Kid said:
Yeah that's some ****ing brilliant logic there. :roll: If law were changed to include fingerprints in the application process for a Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) Card then the gun likely never would have been sold to him the first place. Right?
Click to expand...

What's that going to do?
 
Chillfolks said:
If the police have probable cause to believe someone is lying then present that to a judge who will issue a warrant if he agrees. Do you not understand how our constitution and legal system works?

I think that a minimal amount of follow up would of answered this question like:

Cop: Sir did you sell you get surrender or sell your weapon? If so do you have any documentation?
Bad Guy: Piss off pig
Cop: Thank you have a nice day.

Cop goes to judge gets warrant to search property and takes action if nessecary.

What is your solution?
Click to expand...

Which would... require thousands upon thousands of man hours. For essentially nothing, since he can just hide the gun for a bit and wait out the search.

Treat a gun like a vehicle. Get a title. Can’t transfer it without a title.

Also- your solution only works in a state like IL- most stares don’t require FOID- and the NRA goes nuts when states propose them,
 
Re: Police respond to an active shooter in Aurora, Ill., with ‘multiple people, multiple officers

apdst said:
What's that going to do?
Click to expand...

Jesus! What is it with conservatives and reading comprehension? Did you not just read before that it was only when Martin applied for a concealed carry permit after purchasing the gun and submitted his fingerprints that his criminal record became exposed? So wouldn't be reasonable to deduce from that piece of information that if he had been required to provide those fingerprints for the purchase that he likely would've been red flagged before ever receiving the gun?
 
Threegoofs said:
Which would... require thousands upon thousands of man hours. For essentially nothing, since he can just hide the gun for a bit and wait out the search.

Treat a gun like a vehicle. Get a title. Can’t transfer it without a title.

Also- your solution only works in a state like IL- most stares don’t require FOID- and the NRA goes nuts when states propose them,
Click to expand...


And what about the millions of guns in circulation that are not titled now how are they addressed? Not to mention people can still lie or simply not tittle a gun. You’re creating a black market on tittless gun congratulations you’ve made the crimals more money. You’re plan would require not only man hours but tax increases to pay for the extra state agencies needed to track the gun titles. Do you think the NRA that opposes FOID cards will suddenly think your idea is a good one? Your solution would only work for new purchases post passing and implementation of the law after the numoures court challanges and create a massive pre title ban buying spree.
 
Re: Police respond to an active shooter in Aurora, Ill., with ‘multiple people, multiple officers

Atomic Kid said:
Jesus! What is it with conservatives and reading comprehension? Did you not just read before that it was only when Martin applied for a concealed carry permit after purchasing the gun and submitted his fingerprints that his criminal record became exposed? So wouldn't be reasonable to deduce from that piece of information that if he had been required to provide those fingerprints for the purchase that he likely would've been red flagged before ever receiving the gun?
Click to expand...

You mean, in the 21st Century, a NICS background check isn't good enough to find out if someone has a criminal record? Another failed law?
 
Threegoofs said:
So you just want them to ask and trust the guy to tell the truth.

And it’s fine with you to divert thousands of man hours per year into doing this.

Do you think this guy would have told the truth and surrendered his gun if asked? He was asked once via letter, BTW.
Click to expand...

So in this situation, as you seem to be familiar now with the circumstances...what laws would have stopped this man?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom