Multiple people shot at church in Sutherland Springs

Another person would have been the Vegas shooter.

 

My problem is with the precedent you would be setting by revoking civil rights without crimes being committed. That's a precedent that is just built to be abused and expanded upon.

Either way, I agree with some of it though, and the church shooter actually WAS barred from purchasing or owning firearms....it's just that the Air Force screwed up and the Federal system didn't know any better.

 

Yes, the problem of revoking rights without crimes being committed is a delicate situation which could be abused. That's the difficult part I guess about including mental illness, hate groups, etc..

But, I do think one simple database with a quick YES or NO answer is the answer. It isn't rocket science. The Military, CIA, FBI, and criminal justice systems all need to just enter ANYONE convicted of a felony. I would take it a step further and say add any type of conviction that involves physical assault or abuse against humans and animals to the list.

 

He wouldn't have done any damage with the right gun laws. That's kind of the point. Instead, you'd rather have OK Corral gun fights in churches and schools. Mkay.

 

What's more concerning is the idea we already have laws being broken and NOBODY prosecuting folks who lie on their background checks!!!

If we pass more restrictive gun laws, then what difference does it make if we don't prosecute the law breakers?

 

Guns are awesome. Pew pew!!

 

Gun Control, sensible gun control.

Limit guns by magazine size, firing rate, and no one ever needs an assault style weapon like an AR15.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/...hootings-us-international.html?mwrsm=Facebook

DD

 

I agree. I'd say it is disappointing the Obama Admin wasn't more aggressive on this, whatever their motivations. If the Trump Admin can be more aggressive on enforcing the law, that'd be great.

 

Thought Obama did a great job, however, I do think he worried far too much about his legacy and maybe as a black man he needed to, but I would have preferred he appointed a Supreme court justice when the Senate abdicated it's duty, but he probably thought Hillary had it in the bag....wrong.

DD

 

Of course banning "handguns" and/or "semi-auto" rifles will never happen in my lifetime. I know this. The NRA people have made sure of that for the time being. But if you really wanted to curb gun violence in the USofA...tell me I'm wrong.

 

It's apparently a different system, since he was denied a permit by the state of Texas, according to the governor. So it would have made a difference.

 

I think unfortunately Obama always tried to play the middle so that the wingnuts didn't have the chance to portray him as a fringe liberal. Of course Obama misjudged the wingnuts because he governed as a corporate middle of the road Democrat and they called him a fringe liberal wanting to destroy America anyway. Obama's fault in governing was that he trusted in the basic decency of the average American when in reality a large swath of Americans are ignorant jackasses.

 

Well how about we just make gun laws federal, instead of a patchwork of state laws?

 

The law I'm talking about is FEDERAL BACKGROUND CHECKS.

SMH....

 

Oh no, don't get me wrong, I wasn't saying you were wrong. Quite the contrary, violence with handguns is by far the biggest problem the US faces when it comes to deaths by firearms. From the numbers I've seen when it comes to murders by firearms it's usually somewhere in the 60% range with another 20%+ where they don't specify the type of gun used so I think it's safe to say that handguns are used in something like 75-80% of all murders using firearms or more than half of all murders using weapons.

It's also the preferred weapon of choice of people who want to actually kill themselves and not just dick around to gain sympathy.

There's no question that banning handguns would have a pretty huge effect, it's just not a move that could realistically be made.

 

And people like this want to suggest solutions to a problem in which they are clueless about. And its not just gun control either.

 

Require anyone purchasing a gun to have a license. Just as anyone purchasing a car must have a driver’s license.

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-owner-responsibilities/licensing/

That adds extra protection against people slipping past automated background checks. It would have prevented this tragedy.

What is the argument against doing this?

 

There are so many problems with the current system it is a joke. First of all, don't give anyone an opportunity to lie about their criminal history. Make the data base so simple that all agencies can just enter the photo, name, ID numbers, and fingerprints of anyone not authorized to purchase a gun. You don't need all this time consuming paperwork and questions they can lie about anyway. Just slap their fingerprints on the sensor, type in driver's license and social security numbers or ID, have them look in a camera, and get a YES or No in minutes.

As for this recent tragedy, well people need to be held accountable for their negligence. Start with the designated Base Commander at the time and work your way down. If someone in the Air Force failed to report this man's criminal record to the proper authorities then all those involved need to be held accountable, People died because of this negligence.

 

Private sales.
Non-federally licensed gun sellers at gun shows.

It is so easy to end run background checks that background become meaningless.

 

Any bets that if this guy calling himself Bob Smith

goes to a gun show with say $100,000 that leaves a hour later with 50-100 assault rifles?