'Mass shooting' reported at Sutherland Springs church in Texas

[musiclady]

The point is that it is not efficacious ANYWAY. The point is that all the bullcrap and jumpin through hoops doesn't work anywhere near well,  and in the end, doesn't work at all.

The tenor on this thread is what leads invariably to more plastic feelgood 'tightening up' of the laws which don't tighten a damn thing beyond my own ability to buy a gun unhindered.

Well, check that... because I do buy my guns unhindered. Because I go to the same places the criminals do - I buy em off the back of trucks, simply because I can, and because it ain't worth going the legal route. And Uncle Damn Sam doesn't need to know what firearms I may or may not possess. For all he knows, I have only bought two guns in my whole life. And I trade in guns all the time.

Any gun you'd care to mention, I can have in my hands anytime. All I need is enough cash.

And btw, many of my friends were dumbasses in their youth. Many of them can't legally buy a gun, and haven't been able to since they were kids and the judge laid them low... And there ain't nary a one that doesn't own a closet full.

So in my mind, it would be far better to understand that your 'legal means' doesn't mean a dang thing in the real world and nip the inevitable call for 'stronger laws' right in the bud. All you'll be doing is lending credence to liberal hand-wringing - all of which does nothing at all to stop criminals from being criminal.

Well, goody for you and your friends, but I didn't call for "stronger laws."  I would NEVER call for "stronger laws" (and I doubt anyone on this board would).

And my position that a serial, violent criminal shouldn't be able to buy a LEGAL firearms remains the same.

This monster should NOT have been sold weapons legally.

And he WAS.

That's a problem in the real world, where laws are supposed to mean something, and be followed by law-abiding citizens.

[roamer_1]

Be careful.  It's the "more guns than people" argument that is the most effective liberal argument for gun control.

If law-abiding gun owners want to keep their guns, they are going to have to get comfortable with limited, efficacious measures that keep bad guys from legally purchasing guns.  Such as the data bank law that could have prevented the legal sale of the rifle that Kelley used to mow down worshippers.   

The fact the criminals act outside the law doesn't mean you give up on the idea of having laws altogether.  Legal gun owners will need to live with reasonable restrictions to help reduce the incidence of bad guys getting guns.   Like laws prohibiting felons or perpetrators of domestic violence from buying guns.  Like requirements to register and insure firearms,  so when a gun is stolen or missing, that fact is reported to the police.   Not stupid, symbolic stuff, but real, efficacious measures that reduce the percentage of guns out there "on the street".   

I'm not here to necessarily debate the specific laws that may work or not work.  But I refuse to give in to this mindset that since criminals can "always" get guns illegally there's no reason to have laws at all.    Kelley wasn't a criminal so much as a mental case.   If he had been stopped from buying that rifle because of his domestic violence history, he might not have gunned down that congregation.   

You will NEVER prevent such a man. NEVER.
What you will do is prevent people who might otherwise have protected you.

[Sanguine]

The problem here is that this monster DID buy his weapons legally.

Yes, he may have gotten them anyway, as monsters do, but he didn't HAVE to.

THAT is the problem that needs to be addressed here.

Why wasn't he red flagged multiple times for his previous military discharge, court martial, and his assaults?

The gun seller didn't do anything wrong, according to what he knew, and he armed a cold blooded killer.

He should have known.

Why?   Because the Feds screwed up.

[roamer_1]

Well, goody for you and your friends, but I didn't call for "stronger laws."  I would NEVER call for "stronger laws" (and I doubt anyone on this board would).

@Jazzhead   just did.

And my position that a serial, violent criminal shouldn't be able to buy a LEGAL firearms remains the same.

This monster should NOT have been sold weapons legally.

And he WAS.

That's a problem in the real world, where laws are supposed to mean something, and be followed by law-abiding citizens.

Laws are only followed when they are just. Criminalizing good men in order to catch a few criminal idiots is the wrong thing to do.

I can go to the most gun-control infested cities you might mention and buy anything I want. I dare say I can do the very same in Britain or Germany. It isn't THIS country. It is anywhere. 

You could shut off gun manufacturing entirely and cause all guns to be illegal, and all you will do is cause Mexico and points south to begin a booming business in illegal trade. running guns in just like they do drugs and whores.

You may as well ban steak knives and screwdrivers.

[Polly Ticks]

@Jazzhead   just did.

Laws are only followed when they are just. Criminalizing good men in order to catch a few criminal idiots is the wrong thing to do.

I can go to the most gun-control infested cities you might mention and buy anything I want. I dare say I can do the very same in Britain or Germany. It isn't THIS country. It is anywhere. 

You could shut off gun manufacturing entirely and cause all guns to be illegal, and all you will do is cause Mexico and points south to begin a booming business in illegal trade. running guns in just like they do drugs and whores.

You may as well ban steak knives and screwdrivers.

And pressure cookers and trucks, while you're at it.  Those who want to cause terror will find a way.  Legality isn't an issue for them.

[roamer_1]

And pressure cookers and trucks, while you're at it.  Those who want to cause terror will find a way.  Legality isn't an issue for them.

That's right.

[Cyber Liberty]

Why?   Because the Feds screwed up.

That's exactly what happened, which points out the fallacy of trying to fix the problem of crazy people killing other people with guns.  There are too many ways for the bureaucracy to screw it up.

[Cyber Liberty]

If law-abiding gun owners want to keep their guns, they are going to have to get comfortable with limited, efficacious measures that keep bad guys from legally purchasing guns.  Such as the data bank law that could have prevented the legal sale of the rifle that Kelley used to mow down worshippers.   

I am not familiar with a "data bank law," and Google found nothing.  What is that?  It sounds like a new law you are proposing.  It is incorrect to keep saying Kelley bought the guns "legally."  He did not, he lied on the paperwork, which is illegal.  This is like calling illegal immigrants legal immigrants.

I refuse to get comfortable with more regulations on me.

[Jazzhead]

So the answer is to have no laws at all?   That's ridiculous.   Roamer may thumb his nose and buy guns illegally, and get away with it because he practices Dylan's credo*,  but if he were ever to be caught,  he should have the book thrown at him.   

We need laws that are both limited and efficacious, and to enforce them.  We don't need laws that hinder gun rights for no good purpose, or are merely feel-good symbolism. 

Those who support the Second Amendment hurt their cause by taking extremist positions at odds with common sense.

* "to live outside the law you must be honest"   

[roamer_1]

So the answer is to have no laws at all?   That's ridiculous.   Roamer may thumb his nose and buy guns illegally, and get away with it because he practices Dylan's credo*,  but if he were ever to be caught,  he should have the book thrown at him.   

Who said I am buying guns illegally? With the possible exception of having handled stolen goods unaware, I am doing nothing illegal.

We need laws that are both limited and efficacious, and to enforce them.  We don't need laws that hinder gun rights for no good purpose, or are merely feel-good symbolism. 

There is no such thing.

Those who support the Second Amendment hurt their cause by taking extremist positions at odds with common sense.

* "to live outside the law you must be honest"

There is no common sense in what you propose. All you do is keep guns out of the hands of people who would follow the law. Criminals, by nature, do not follow law.

[thackney]

So the answer is to have no laws at all?   That's ridiculous.   Roamer may thumb his nose and buy guns illegally, and get away with it because he practices Dylan's credo*,  but if he were ever to be caught,  he should have the book thrown at him.   

We need laws that are both limited and efficacious, and to enforce them.  We don't need laws that hinder gun rights for no good purpose, or are merely feel-good symbolism. 

Those who support the Second Amendment hurt their cause by taking extremist positions at odds with common sense.

* "to live outside the law you must be honest"

To purchase firearms from an individual without government involvement is not, and should not be, illegal.

[mountaineer]

If law-abiding gun owners want to keep their guns, they are going to have to get comfortable with limited, efficacious measures that keep bad guys from legally purchasing guns. 

Except they're never limited nor efficacious.

[Cyber Liberty]

Except they're never limited nor efficacious.

A frog in the process of being boiled is quite comfortable with the water as it's heating up.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Be careful.  It's the "more guns than people" argument that is the most effective liberal argument for gun control.

If law-abiding gun owners want to keep their guns, they are going to have to get comfortable with limited, efficacious measures that keep bad guys from legally purchasing guns.  Such as the data bank law that could have prevented the legal sale of the rifle that Kelley used to mow down worshippers.   

The fact the criminals act outside the law doesn't mean you give up on the idea of having laws altogether.  Legal gun owners will need to live with reasonable restrictions to help reduce the incidence of bad guys getting guns.   Like laws prohibiting felons or perpetrators of domestic violence from buying guns.  Like requirements to register and insure firearms,  so when a gun is stolen or missing, that fact is reported to the police.   Not stupid, symbolic stuff, but real, efficacious measures that reduce the percentage of guns out there "on the street".   

I'm not here to necessarily debate the specific laws that may work or not work.  But I refuse to give in to this mindset that since criminals can "always" get guns illegally there's no reason to have laws at all.    Kelley wasn't a criminal so much as a mental case.   If he had been stopped from buying that rifle because of his domestic violence history, he might not have gunned down that congregation.   

i don't give a Rat's hind foot about what Liberals want to argue.

The law is the law.

And it doesn't come Any Higher or with Any more Controlling/Over Riding Authority than "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

And Since the 2nd means squat to Libs meaning to INFRINGE, then we Should be telling them we don't want Them to have any 1st Amendment Right to run their yaps for more gun control which only gets More People Killed, UNLESS, We can have Their mouths entered into Govt background check systems and They will have to be Govt Approved before They can offer Their Opinion on this, or any other subject.

There is no such damn thing as limited, efficacious gun control which cannot be circumvented by anyone with the desire to get around it.

I for one am sick to my guts of the very Idea of 'Bipartisan' Agreement with Libs on just about Any issue.

On gun control in, They can go to hell.


Bipartisan: synonym for Date Rape

[Jazzhead]

I am not familiar with a "data bank law," and Google found nothing.  What is that?  It sounds like a new law you are proposing.  It is incorrect to keep saying Kelley bought the guns "legally."  He did not, he lied on the paperwork, which is illegal.  This is like calling illegal immigrants legal immigrants.

I refuse to get comfortable with more regulations on me.

I was referring to the law you referenced in your post #552.   The one where the Air Force was supposed to transmit data regarding Kelley's history of domestic violence, and if he were in the database, the gun store wouldn't have sold him the gun he used to murder 26 people. 

[Jazzhead]

Except they're never limited nor efficacious.

So you're against keeping a data base of folks with felony convictions that gun stores must check before selling a firearm?   According to Hoodat, that law prevents 48,000 legal sales per year.   

[roamer_1]

I was referring to the law you referenced in your post #552.   The one where the Air Force was supposed to transmit data regarding Kelley's history of domestic violence, and if he were in the database, the gun store wouldn't have sold him the gun he used to murder 26 people.

No... They'd have sold it to his girlfriend or his buddy instead.

[austingirl]

To purchase firearms from an individual without government involvement is not, and should not be, illegal.

 :thumbsup3:

[Sanguine]

This is really a thread specifically about the shooting in Sutherland Springs.  Discussion of "gun control" is at best tangential to that.

@Jazzhead, you might want to start a gun control discussion thread elsewhere and leave this for updates on the shooting and the victims.  Thank you in advance.

[roamer_1]

So you're against keeping a data base of folks with felony convictions that gun stores must check before selling a firearm?   According to Hoodat, that law prevents 48,000 legal sales per year.

Generating 48000 legal sales to friends or family, or second-hand trade.
It means nothing.

[truth_seeker]

Talk-talk-talk abut guns, gun control, is in part looking at the inanimate object.

We need better people control. There needs to be a major rethink about "civil liberty" for people that are mentally ill and have shown a propensity to be violent.

Battering his child so severely as to fracture the baby's skull might ought to mean life in prison.

We probably need more prisons. We probably need stiffer sentences for violent crimes.   

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I was referring to the law you referenced in your post #552.   The one where the Air Force was supposed to transmit data regarding Kelley's history of domestic violence, and if he were in the database, the gun store wouldn't have sold him the gun he used to murder 26 people.

At least you got the part right about him being the culprit, not the gun.

The part you do not get is that a guy so maniac that he kills little kids in a church is just inhibited from using that specific gun not sold to him, as he certainly would have had no compunction from getting some other gun to commit the deed.

The gun is tangential to the real issue which is that this guy wanted people to die, whether from a gun he gets legally, illegally or a car he runs people over with or a match he uses in the church to torch people.  He is the problem, not a gun or a method.

[thackney]

Generating 48000 legal sales to friends or family, or second-hand trade.
It means nothing.

Sales, but not all 48,000 are going to be legal sales.  If a felon is buying, that purchase isn't legal.

[roamer_1]

Sales, but not all 48,000 are going to be legal sales.  If a felon is buying, that purchase isn't legal.

That's right. I stand corrected, but the point remains.

[austingirl]

I posted a thread with the names of victims just released.