Yes, how is it not? At best, with your example there exists a small subset of purchases of guns that can be purchased without a background check. If your intent is evil then nothing changes. Guns will still be purchased by current or future criminals illegally.
Do you feel safer with the additional screening? I’m in the aviation business. I know what goes on at airports. Whatever allusions of safety you have are misplaced.
At least one state has already passed bump-stock laws so that statement is false. What additional laws do you wish to create and how will that stop a criminal?
So you are basically saying there is nothing that can be done to stop people from flying jets into buildings or people shooting mass amounts of people so we should just throw up our hands and say “gah, not again, but, what can ya do?”
It seems to be the vast majority of all these crimes are committed by men. Maybe that’s the avenue we should be going after. I bet Magiver is a man…
The reason the shooter was able to purchase a firearm even though he should have failed a background check was that the Air Force failed to submit Texas shooter’s criminal history to the FBI.
You’re surer than the evidence would support.
Removing the most efficient means of murder doesn’t save any lives? Really?
That’s what the civilized world already has accepted, btw.
Some statements are futile to counter, but can only be admired. That was one.
No I’m not basically saying that and I already posted some suggestions.
Yes. And again, I addressed that issue although in a “read between the lines” manner. If you don’t address root causes then the solution is a waste of time and money.
I’ll give you a simple example, We spend billions on security systems for airports that don’t work. They don’t address human behavior. The Israelis use an interviewing system done in layers that focuses directly on human behavior.
there’s no evidence to support your position. Americans don’t want to give up their guns.
really. There is no logic to your premise that removing a gun has any affect on a person’s ability to kill.
Yeah, I realized I was wrong about the background check and posted a correction.
It is only harder if you consider waiting for a background check to be “hard”
Yes, trucks have been as deadly as any firearm. The result of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing killed 168 people, injured more than 680 others, and destroyed one-third of the building. The blast destroyed or damaged 324 other buildings within a 16-block radius, shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings, and destroyed or burned 86 cars. According to Wiki.
Guns and trucks don’t kill people. People kill people.
Post shortened, emphasis added, eyes rolled.
And again, they passed regulations to make this form of attack harder (along with flying planes into buildings). Thanks for showing that we should pass regulation to make it harder for people to use guns to commit mass murders.
Which has no correlation to murder rates…
Sorry, the problems behind these instances cannot be reduced to a neat sound bite.
Perhaps I missed seeing it anywhere here on the SD forums, but it bears repeating that a neighbor with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle put an end to the mass murder event. Funny how the popular media (and most posters here on SDMB) wants to gloss over the fact that an armed neighbor shot the church murderer, stopping further murders. It would have been better, of course, had he reacted faster, but better late than never. A good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun, using a gun that the gun control crowd wants to ban.
It’s been discussed, the reason it’s not been discussed more is because reality doesn’t match your version. Consider
A) The shooter had already left the church before he was confronted by the neighbor, suggesting that his spree was likely already over,
B) The neighbor shot the guy twice but he didn’t actually, you know, die until he shot himself in the head
It’s not the worse “good guy with a gun story” I’ve heard, but it’s not the best, either. Reality never plays out quite as well as the fantasies. Everyone inside that church would have been better off if neither of those AR-15s existed.
Pssst - Post #100
I’ve seen it in multiple spots on this forum along with a ton of mainstream media coverage. I guess until the “good guy with a gun” is the headline instead of “another mass murder due to guns”, it’s all liberal bias.
Had the gun control crowd had their way, the BAD GUY would not have had a gun, either, and there would be no need of the post-hoc good guy. And dozens of people wouldn’t be dead.
OK, lets expand on that. The purpose of the background check is to screen out the obvious. It’s hard for those who aren’t supposed to be able to purchase a gun. It’s not meant to be hard for those who can legitimately purchase one. For people with a CCW license there is a required safety course to obtain the license.
This is patently absurd. At best you would have a law abiding citizen without a gun. But unless you have a solution to the heroin problem you don’t have a method for removing guns. On top of that there is no evidence you can produce that the killer couldn’t have killed those people using other methods.
The reports I’ve read seem to indicate that both shots were severe wounds, and they possibly, you know, resulted in the murderer losing control of his truck in a pretty significant accident. That he shot himself in the head is certainly a bonus all-around.
You seem pretty sure the shooter had wrapped up his day and was going home to enjoy a nice, cold beer rather than, you know, continuing to shoot other people in other locations.