Winners only.

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

Right. But how do we choose who to profile without violating privacy?
What's that movie where they arrest people because a "fortune teller" says they will commit a crime? Slippery slope.

Minority Report - Tom Cruise.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

most of these laws are forced through the pipe in the form of executive orders and what not. . . then it has to be battled out in the court system

Or hidden in bills with nice sounding names...

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Some people are collectors and some people are planners. That is where the profilers come in... if they are actually any good at their jobs.

Profiling isn't an exact science...and I'd be more fearful of govt profilers going around checking up on
people...

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Well like I stated... after a certain number of guns. Say like 50 guns. The ATF or DOJ could profile that person. They don't need to actually interfere in the persons life to profile them, I am sure the government has all the info on all of use they could ever use. It could possibly cut down on potential mass shootings... don't ya think?

I'm against all of that...gun limits...govt lists...nothing could possibly go wrong there...

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Well like I stated... after a certain number of guns. Say like 50 guns. The ATF or DOJ could profile that person. They don't need to actually interfere in the persons life to profile them, I am sure the government has all the info on all of use they could ever use. It could possibly cut down on potential mass shootings... don't ya think?

What about the person with one gun who buys 50,000 rounds of ammo.
Or the guy who has 5 guns but likes to "travel freely"?
How many mass shootings have been effected by people who own an arsenal?

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

What about the person with one gun who buys 50,000 rounds of ammo.
Or the guy who has 5 guns but likes to "travel freely"?
How many mass shootings have been effected by people who own an arsenal?

That's what concerns me...even if they set a max limit on firearms and an army of profilers...the next incident with a firearm will lead to adjustments (the precedent was already set to cap firearm ownership in thx's scenario)...and that cycle will just repeat until you can only own 1 or 2 guns and a limit on ammo...

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

Slippery slope. What about knife collectors? Baseball bats? Military memorabilia? Shoes?
Yes, I get they are guns, but it's a fine line. Maybe the shoe collector really IS crazy and going to wreak some havoc somewhere, and the shoe collecting showed it.

What happens if they find a common trait in all serial killers that is actually a "normal" thing (you pick)? Do they start keeping an eye on all people who do this "normal" thing"? What if it's certain very specific brainwave activity? Do they make everyone be tested so we can lock up the ones who will likely be serial killers?
Seems Orwellian, but not so outrageous any more.

The vegas shooter had an arsenal, but the Sandy Hook kid had one gun. How many guns does the average mass shooter own? If very few have an arsenal, do we still consider it a "sign" of future problems?
I dunno.

I think the concern over arsenals is more of the gov't projecting itself. You can only shoot one gun at time. I guess if had a bump stock, maybe 2 ARs.

"They" have the info they want, it's just are they willing to act and can they act legally??? Most of these shooters are popping up on the radar ahead of time.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

I

Well like I stated... after a certain number of guns. Say like 50 guns. The ATF or DOJ could profile that person. They don't need to actually interfere in the persons life to profile them, I am sure the government has all the info on all of use they could ever use. It could possibly cut down on potential mass shootings... don't ya think?

I'm pretty sure they're already profiling them.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

You guys are bringing me back to a point I made a long time ago. Nobody seems to want Big Brother involved in our 2nd amendment rights but certain people want stricter gun laws. None of which are going to stop a killer from killing.

Why make people pay for the crimes other people commit? How about focusing on the criminals. Bring back public executions. Hangings. Placing people in the stocks and letting people torture them. We are too soft on criminals and you see the results. Everyone else pays while they get 3 hots and a cot.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

You guys are bringing me back to a point I made a long time ago. Nobody seems to want Big Brother involved in our 2nd amendment rights but certain people want stricter gun laws. None of which are going to stop a killer from killing.

Why make people pay for the crimes other people commit? How about focusing on the criminals. Bring back public executions. Hangings. Placing people in the stocks and letting people torture them. We are too soft on criminals and you see the results. Everyone else pays while they get 3 hots and a cot.

But didn't you suggest earlier that they should profile people with larger gun collections?
No argument against punishment as long as we have laws that make sense.
Life in prison for selling pot but 3 years for killing someone while drunk driving seems out of whack to me.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

You guys are bringing me back to a point I made a long time ago. Nobody seems to want Big Brother involved in our 2nd amendment rights but certain people want stricter gun laws. None of which are going to stop a killer from killing.

Why make people pay for the crimes other people commit? How about focusing on the criminals. Bring back public executions. Hangings. Placing people in the stocks and letting people torture them. We are too soft on criminals and you see the results. Everyone else pays while they get 3 hots and a cot.

Considering we have one of the largest prison populations in the world...I don't think it's an issue of too soft on crime...I think we've gone overboard on locking people up...there's a lot of felony classified crimes that could be reasonably adjudicated as class A misdemeanors (and settled a lot quicker) instead of tying up prosecutors and judges with nonsense...plus getting the "Tough on crime" people out the system would help too...they just chase conviction numbers instead of quality prosecution on cases that actually matter...while our legal system is amongst the best in the world is considerably flawed...but you have one side isle saying let'em go and the other saying lock them up...there's just no perceived political advantage by politicians to actually making meaningful changes over pandering...that just leads to "feel good" laws and legislation that only exacerbate the problems...

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

But didn't you suggest earlier that they should profile people with larger gun collections?
No argument against punishment as long as we have laws that make sense.
Life in prison for selling pot but 3 years for killing someone while drunk driving seems out of whack to me.

The idea of profiling was put forth as a hypothetical.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Considering we have one of the largest prison populations in the world...I don't think it's an issue of too soft on crime...I think we've gone overboard on locking people up...there's a lot of felony classified crimes that could be reasonably adjudicated as class A misdemeanors (and settled a lot quicker) instead of tying up prosecutors and judges with nonsense...plus getting the "Tough on crime" people out the system would help too...they just chase conviction numbers instead of quality prosecution on cases that actually matter...while our legal system is amongst the best in the world is considerably flawed...but you have one side isle saying let'em go and the other saying lock them up...there's just no perceived political advantage by politicians to actually making meaningful changes over pandering...that just leads to "feel good" laws and legislation that only exacerbate the problems...

It is too soft. Free room and board. They get to live even if they kill people and we get to pay for them. Damn that. Torture until death. Make everyone watch so criminals know there is no options. Do the crime, die. Murder, Child **** and such.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

It is too soft. Free room and board. They get to live even if they kill people and we get to pay for them. Damn that. Torture until death. Make everyone watch so criminals know there is no options. Do the crime, die. Murder, Child **** and such.

Free room and board is the argument I always hear...is the years it takes for a felony to fall off your record too soft...is not being able to find meaningful work while waiting for it to fall too soft...how about trying find a place to live with a felony...most felony convictions aren't for anything near the level of murder, 1st degree assault, *** offenses...the big ones are worth the wasted resources to keep them out of society...

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Free room and board is the argument I always hear...is the years it takes for a felony to fall off your record too soft...is not being able to find meaningful work while waiting for it to fall too soft...how about trying find a place to live with a felony...most felony convictions aren't for anything near the level of murder, 1st degree assault, *** offenses...the big ones are worth the wasted resources to keep them out of society...

I don't feel sorry for the choices they made. They chose to be criminals. They are housed to make money. If America was far more strict on crimes there would be less of it.