Multiple people shot at church in Sutherland Springs

Our president says extreme vetting wouldn't have stopped this shooting. What?!?!?! Extreme vetting would have found his criminal records and realized he shouldn't have been able to purchase.

Every day I feel like we've reached the peak of his ineptitude and it just keeps going.

 

its a stupid question. wtf is 'extreme vetting'? is that legislation? he was vetted and incorrectly passed. was that extreme vetting? I think the person vetting was drinking mountain dew. Does that make it extreme?

 

Sure, but that is covered by question 5, isn’t it? I see what you’re saying, but I would agree more with your point if question 5 was excluded from the results.

As it is, my interpretation of the result is that people are almost universally in agreement that background checks for sales from licensed gun dealers should be in place. I don’t infer that’s true for private sales, since the response to question 5 says otherwise.

 

I agree this is a stupid thing to say but do you really believe criminals can't get their hand on guns? I cannot believe you actually believe that.

 

Well, also there's no practical amount of vetting that would have helped in a situation where the information available is inaccurate or incomplete.

When it comes to getting his hands on guns, I mean, if it's illegal then you can't get it right? That's why there are no illegal drugs in this country right now. Laws are absolute.

 

Criminals can get their hands on guns. Of course I'm aware of that. But the way he said that just really irked me.

 

Your attempt at humor fell way short..

 

wasn't going for humor. was going for annoyed. but please tell me what is extreme vetting is.

why would you be irked by a meaningless question that it turn gets a meaningless answer?

 

Yea that's why I agreed with you that it was a stupid thing for Trump to say but then you go and say something stupid too in your rebuttal!?!

 

Maybe reconsider instant clearance for background checks, which I suppose is what happened in this case?

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/358942-texas-gov-abbot-gunman-was-denied-gun-permit

Apparently he was denied a gun permit. How can a person who doesn’t have a permit to carry a firearm be allowed to pass a background check? Honest question — I’m totally ignorant on how this works.

 

How about a federal database where purchases and local holds on purchases would be able to tracked?

 

Perhaps the state uses a different system than the federal background check does. I dunno. The guy passed multiple federal background checks though because he bought several guns and passed a federal background check each time. Turns out the federal government is incompetent. Who knew?

 

I am guessing that the argument would be "we don't want the government to know how many and what types of guns we own".

 

Well, I'm sure that's part of it, but even worse would be if it was public information meaning that people who had guns could be targeted for burglary while out of town. As it stands, illegally obtained guns are one of the biggest problems when it comes to guns in this country, that would just make it easier to steal them.

 

Fair point. For anyone else that was confused, the articles about Cruz's bill are from 2013. And Reid probably killed it because the background check enforcement measures were packaged up with other things to liberalize gun ownership, like making it easier to transport guns across state lines. The Dems had some other bill in the works and they probably hoped to get their own instead and ended up getting nothing. Cruz, of course, probably knew he couldn't get his bill either but probably figured it could be a proof point to say he's doing something about gun violence and perhaps embarrass some democrats along the way. A lot of political sausage making on both sides, both sides.

But Cruz and Grassley should bring it back. They should be able to get the votes easier now. And, they won't have an Obama veto waiting at the end of the line.

 

Again, nothing won't change untill the premise shifts far enough left where a politician can say "our goal is to drastically reduce the circulation of our 300 million firearms" without the statement committing political suicide.

300 million random firearms spread through out this country is why we have far more firearm deaths compared to other developed nations. End of story.

 

I don't think it's a problem because they showed all the questions. What it shows me is that when you ask a general question to a gun owner, they say "sure everyone should get a background check" without thinking about the particulars. When you ask a particular question that makes them think about the gun show environment in particular and whatever complications a background check would cause there, they suddenly lose their resolve. It's like a guy who says he opposes the death penalty, but then he hears about a particularly grisly series of murders and he's first in line to hang the perp. The results in Q5 are more telling than Q1 when it comes to the resistance you'll find if you mess with their gun shows. But, I think Q is still useful in showing their philosophical bent. People see the logic of checking everyone; they worry about the implementation and how they will be impacted.

 

Not just the number, but the types of firearms has to be taken into consideration as well.

 

That's not what is driving the murder rate in this country as we've already been over. Canada has less than 1/3 the guns per capita that the US has and their murder rate would be comparable to the US if not for one very small group of ultra violent people influenced by a toxic subculture that skew the results for the entire country.

If you really want to make a difference, that would seem to be the best place to start as opposed to punishing the whole for the actions of the 1.3%. Now getting people to turn away from a toxic subculture of violence and criminality is certainly not as easy as passing a law, and it would require actually admitting what the real problem is, so I don't think that'll happen any time soon.

 

It’s about risk management. Murder laws don’t prevent all murders right and so on.