Dbqgolfer Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 Just read that the Air Force failed to report domestic assault conviction to FBI database. Doing so would have prevented him from legally purchasing guns. Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 28 minutes ago, Dbqgolfer said: Just read that the Air Force failed to report domestic assault conviction to FBI database. Doing so would have prevented him from legally purchasing guns. Really disappointing. Unfortunately, given the amount of scrutiny we assign to our military when they screw up (almost nonexistent, unless they get us into an unpopular war), I'm guessing this may get a little bit of airtime tomorrow and we'll just "aww, shucks, what are you gonna do" our way through another one. So many people who might still be alive if we actually did the right things. Some of them aren't even big things! This one is a good example... do the little things. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted November 7, 2017 Author Share Posted November 7, 2017 I figured this would be the response. Link to comment
Nebfanatic Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 13 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: I figured this would be the response. Tougher gun laws wouldn't have taken the citizens gun away though..... Link to comment
knapplc Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 16 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said: Tougher gun laws wouldn't have taken the citizens gun away though..... They do in every other first world nation. 2 Link to comment
Nebfanatic Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 1 minute ago, knapplc said: They do in every other first world nation. I don't disagree with this data and would love us to be much tougher on guns, but the common sense gun regulations that are the small and only first step for America due to our gun hard on wouldn't have taken the rifle from the guy who chased down the terrorist. The gun laws we would enact would be geared towards not selling guns to people like the terrorist and prohibiting certain guns and attachments that is conducive to mass death. We are a long long way from banning hunting rifles and shotguns so the resident of Sutherland Springs who shot at and chased the shooter would have had his guns whether we had tougher gun laws or not likely. The difference would have been the terrorists access to assault weapons. 1 Link to comment
funhusker Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 (edited) I took Nebfanatic's comment to mean that the citizen that helped scare off the shooter would have still been able to have a gun and help. Edit:^^^Nebfanatic just further explained his post they way I understood it. Edited November 7, 2017 by funhusker 1 Link to comment
Nebfanatic Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 2 minutes ago, funhusker said: I took Nebfanatic's comment to mean that the citizen that helped scare off the shooter would have still been able to have a gun and help. 100%. To me, it's questionable to draw your weapon on an active shooter and try and take him down, though Texas is a circumstance I think it was completely a necessary action. But either way that whole idea of taking bystanders guns away so there would be no one to stop shooters is ludicrous. We aren't talking about gun laws on conceal and carry pistols or hunting weapons. These things also contribute to death and gun violence across America so it is an issue to be dealt with, but right now we need to focus on how can we limit and hopefully mostly eliminate mass shooting events where people are using more militarized gear. There is no place for that stuff(the military grade weapons) among our society. Link to comment
knapplc Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 Apologies. I thought by "citizen" you meant the citizen who did the shooting, not the citizen who stopped him. 1 Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 (edited) Cowards gonna cower. Pathetic. Also, I don't know who asked this, but bravo. Edited November 7, 2017 by dudeguyy 2 Link to comment
Fru Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 http://thehill.com/homenews/house/359079-paul-ryan-praying-is-the-right-thing-to-do-after-mass-shootings-because-it Ryan: Praying the right thing to do after mass shootings because it ‘works’ Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted November 7, 2017 Author Share Posted November 7, 2017 1 hour ago, dudeguyy said: Cowards gonna cower. Pathetic. Also, I don't know who asked this, but bravo. I'm guessing that this is going to be the main argument. My next question is then, what's your solution? If you are going to take completely off the table, a change in gun regulation, then YOU come up with a solution. The status quo isn't acceptable. 1 Link to comment
Nebfanatic Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: I'm guessing that this is going to be the main argument. My next question is then, what's your solution? If you are going to take completely off the table, a change in gun regulation, then YOU come up with a solution. The status quo isn't acceptable. The argument is a fallacy though. We don't want to take away the hero's hunting rifle. We aren't asking for laws to stop everyday people from purchasing a 12 gauge for trap shooting. We are asking that guns aren't sold to mentally unstable people or those who have a history if violence like this guy. We are asking that civilians aren't legally allowed to purchase or posses any type of gun or attachment that can make a gun automatic. Common sense regulations that won't effect 99% of gun owners but will make it harder on the very small percentage that wants to cause harm. 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted November 7, 2017 Author Share Posted November 7, 2017 4 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said: The argument is a fallacy though. We don't want to take away the hero's hunting rifle. We aren't asking for laws to stop everyday people from purchasing a 12 gauge for trap shooting. We are asking that guns aren't sold to mentally unstable people or those who have a history if violence like this guy. We are asking that civilians aren't legally allowed to purchase or posses any type of gun or attachment that can make a gun automatic. Common sense regulations that won't effect 99% of gun owners but will make it harder on the very small percentage that wants to cause harm. Just to be clear.....I'm pretty sure it was reported that the "hero" was using an AR very similar to what the shooter was using. I guess I haven't seen that it was a hunting rifle. Link to comment
Nebfanatic Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 (edited) 20 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: Just to be clear.....I'm pretty sure it was reported that the "hero" was using an AR very similar to what the shooter was using. I guess I haven't seen that it was a hunting rifle. OK I had read that somewhere. Still most everything I said wouldn't have restricted that guy from buying an AR. But perhaps if the gun seller had been more vigilant in looking into the terrorists past he wouldn't have been sold a gun. Laws that make sure guys like this aren't allowed to slip through the cracks aren't going to affect most gun owners and if it does effect you, maybe you shouldn't own a gun. The question posed to our president was solely about extreme vetting. Trump thinks it's necessary for immigration, why not guns? Edited November 7, 2017 by Nebfanatic Link to comment
Recommended Posts