Multiple people shot at church in Sutherland Springs

Nah... I'm pretty sure 300 million firearms circulating in our country is what makes poorer individuals have easier access to firearms and thus results in more firearm related deaths.

Telling other people their "culture is bad" ain't going to solve ****.

 

Oh, I've been a proponent of banning handguns for a long time. If you wanted to be serious about curbing gun violence, that's where you start.

 

Fair enough, I mean that type of legislation would never be supported and probably would be deemed unconstitutional even if it was, but at least you are correctly pointing out the most dangerous type of firearms in the US and steering the conversation back into productive waters.

 

I thought he handled that reporter's questions pretty well considering the time and place.

 

Illegal firearms are already significantly more expensive than their legal counter part. Where exactly do you think is the source for these illegal firearms? For the vast majority of cases, they are not the result of some Hollywood styled army warehouse, police station, gun factory etc warehouse heist

 

I'm not sure what your point is here, but most illegal firearms are stolen....so in a lot of cases, they aren't more expensive, they are free.

 

Curious, what is the benefit to public safety allowing easier transport of guns across state lines?

 

The man never sounds sincere about anything, in my opinion. That he "won" the nation's highest office is a tragedy we will spend many years recovering from. The reputation of the United States is getting hammered around the world because of this pathological liar, this narcissist, this unstable man-child who cares for no one but himself, his alleged money, and possibly his children.

 

Well, it would lead to fewer legal gun owners being unarmed while traveling long distances which is a good thing. Furthermore, there's just no reason to prevent legal gun owners from transporting guns legally across state lines. It's sort of a "why not" answer to the question of "why".

 

The 12 year old in charge speaks:

BBC: Texas shooting: Trump rejects stricter gun checks

US President Donald Trump has said that "hundreds more" would have died in a Texas church mass shooting if US gun laws were more stringent.

 

I'm hoping someone else can chime in because I have no idea. I assume it was in there because the NRA wants to defeat gun control laws in blue states by forcing them to accept gun license holders from red states -- same as how we forced blue states to accept gay marriages from red states once upon a time. I suppose the public safety angle would be the 'good guys with guns' argument -- them Californians are going to need a good ol' boy from Texas packing heat to save them from them Mooslim terrorists. Hopefully, someone has something better than that.

 

My concern regarding the Air Force's error in not submitting his name to the database is: how many other names have they failed to register? Of all the violent ex-cons to put on the register, the ones that have been trained by the US Armed Forces in combat are probably the most important. I hope they are doing a big review of their process and making sure there aren't other mistakes.

 

Agreed, that kind of error is completely inexcusable. Honestly heads need to roll.

 

If this guy didn't have a state issued gun permit, why was he authorized to purchase these guns, even leaving aside the procedural screw up on the federal background check? Isn't it reasonable to require that anyone who wants to buy a firearm should have a permit? I don't get it.

 

There's no need for a permit to buy a gun in Texas, the permit that he didn't have was a concealed handgun license. That said, even if they did require a permit, it wouldn't have done anything due to the Air Force screw up. Basically the same system would be used and it would have failed just the same.

 

The only thing I am OK with is for people to quit fighting against each other and for those in charge to make big changes to the gun laws.

People with mental illness should not be allowed to buy guns. People with any criminal history of violence should not be allowed to buy guns. Why give guns to people who have any type of mental instability? Why give guns to anyone who has hurt people in the past by abuse and physical violence? People associated with terrorist and hate organizations should not be allowed to buy guns.

Make it simple. One database where DEA, CIA, FBI, doctors, hospitals, police, military, etc... enter the name, photo, and fingerprints of the person who is ill, violent, or has reason to be considered a threat. If a doctor is prescribing medication for any type of depression, etc.., then the person's name will go into the database. If a person has been hospitalized for any type of mental illness, then their names goes into the database. The reason the person is denied will not appear on the rejection response. A machine with photo and fingerprint recognition should be required and it should only take 1 minute to do the check, with a YES or NO.

Mental illness, suicidal thoughts, and depression have a tendency of repeating themselves with certain individuals. People who have been violent or abusive in the past often repeat this type of behavior in the future. People involved in criminal activity often associate themselves with the same type people. People in known hate or terrorist groups are not the people we want walking into Academy and purchasing ammo and weapons. These are the people who we can just weed out quickly.

That law abiding Texas rancher or hunter, who loves shooting guns for sport out in the Texas Hill Country should not be denied. That law abiding citizen who just wants a rifle or pistol to feel safe at home does not need to be denied. But, I don't think anybody needs automatic weapons of any kind unless they are being hired to protect and serve our country. We don't need a bunch of Scarface or Pulp Fiction movie characters taking down people with their machine guns when they are double crossed or bent out of shape. Next we will have people fighting for the right to drive armored tanks down the streets and say it is their law abiding right to bear arms. Let's get a little smarter, in a changing world, and civilize things as best as we can.

 

I'm curious, are there any other civil liberties that we should revoke from people with any type of mental instability? How about those associated with terrorist and hate organizations?

I'm not necessarily against everything you are saying, but where do you draw the line? Is it just the right to bear arms, or should you revoke other rights too? How about the right to free speech? We don't want crazy people or those with links to terrorism and hate organizations spreading propaganda do we?

What about the right to vote? People with disqualifying conditions clearly aren't fit to vote right?

Just curious what you think.

 

Well said. What I would add to the part I quoted would be that gun collectors with a permit that would be difficult, but not impossible, to get should be allowed to purchase semi-automatic weapons. I know gun collectors who are as responsible as one could imagine, people who would have no problem getting a "hard to get" permit to own such weapons. One is a retired cardiovascular surgeon I play trivia with every week at a pub here in Austin. He has a huge safe you can walk into with a cornucopia of firearms, all legal. It's fun to go to a shooting range with him. He's a conservative, I'm a liberal fellow, and we get along famously. One would never imagine such a thing happening based on the posts one sees in D&D from people like RussianLegend.

 

Nothing more than what I mentioned Bobby. Sure, you can draw all the links and lines, and everything associated with them. There are people who go too far, and cross that line when they can't control their hate for those who aren't like them. There are people who can't control their emotions, anger, or desire to hurt others. There are people who will do anything to make money, and hurt anyone who tries to stop them. Let's just start with them.