Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In this case he had a criminal conviction and it involved spousal abuse and had be been reported by the Air Force he would have not been able to legally buy a gun. I agree on the mental health issue but in this case it came down to a criminal issue and the Air Force not doing their job under the Law.
You sure you're a liberal? You're speaking common sense!
That's where I lose respect for folks when talking about these issues. They believe they're all 1 in the same and go after the implement. Then pull the cute argument we don't want to confiscate your guns. They end that on a cliff hanger for if they were honest they would follow with...
But we do want to make sure that this/these firearms aren't available in the future so you can keep what you have it won't be confiscated. But you won't be able to sell it or pass it down...
The end result was the same.
The contributing factor(s) however, different.
Airforce dropped the ball. Guy lied committing a felony on a 4473. Had the Airforce done their part... the NICS check would have denied him.
There is one thing, IMO, that must be asked before any "gun control" law is passed:
Will this new law mean that such a mass shooting will NEVER happen again?
If the proponents can not guarantee that result, the law should not be passed!
In the latest case, it appears the Air Force did not notify the proper authorities, so when the shooter lied on the background check form, it wasn't caught! Just like Carfax, the system can't work if the proper reports are not made!
So, the background check didn't prevent the shooting from happening.
In fact, many laws were broken, and none of them prevented the shooting!
Will a new law keep it from happening again? If not, why bother passing the law!
How many more children are we going to sacrifice in the name of the Second Amendment?
People who harm children or anyone else with a firearm are criminals. Not people exercising their 2A rights. Many advocates for the 2A cite the need for personal arms in the context of a militia that can stand against government tyranny. While this is a part of the second, "security of a free state" entails much more. Defense against criminal tyranny being the lions share. Be this individual or group criminal oppression. A mugger or rapist,or a vicious criminal gang terrorizing a community.
The answer to your question is not pretty and there is no way to disguise it. Violent criminals kill people. Fighting back means spilling blood in return. It is a desirable thing to stop such an attack before innocent people are killed an/or injured but this is an unlikely outcome. There will be more people killed by violent criminals. Children and adults. But others will be saved by dedicated armed citizens. The criminal misuse of firearms has nothing to do with the second amendment.
The victims of murderers with guns are not being "sacrificed for its sake." They are being murdered. Disarming people like me, like my entire family and circle of friends and millions of others like us will not stop violent psychopaths and criminals from killing more people. Children and otherwise. All that will serve to accomplish is ensuring that these murders can take place with impunity. To coin a phrase, oft used by those who advocate for disarming the citizenry, "if it saves even one life." An armed citizen is in a far better position to save a life than an unarmed one. And they do. Every day.
But we do not hear about it. There will continue to be victims of criminal violence. But there will also be lives saved by armed citizens. No, it's not a pretty picture. But it's a fact. Truly, I wish dearly that I could say that an armed citizenry guarantees successful defense against all violent criminal attack. But I cannot. However our odds are better that at least some attacks will be stopped and lives saved if our citizenry is ready and able to respond to such attacks.
It really doesn't have anything to do with the 2A when t's down to brass tacks. It goes a LOT deeper than that. It's about defending our very right to live. The lives of those we love. We have the unwritten RIGHT to defend these lives and if that means we must use force of arms to do so we also have a right to the means to that force. Perhaps at least some of this might make sense to you. I don't know if violent crime has ever touched your life personally or via a loved one. I have experienced both. For my loved one,not responding to the attack with lethal force would have seen her brutally raped and probably murdered.
In the end, a combination of the effects of the attack and issues exacerbated by it claimed her life. I am thus rather immutable on the issue of our right to defend ourselves. I can feel no guilt or shame in the taking of a violent predators life. Without our rights to weapons more innocents will die without any fight to see otherwise. There are predators out here that are not after just our wallet, purse or our car. Given complete latitude they will take our very souls. And our only option is to have the means to deny them their goals. Again, not pretty, not heroic, but it is an absolute fact. Perhaps this clarifies how people like me feel and why.
What about the terror attack in Nice? Last I checked, this was done with a truck. New York City. The killer used a truck. Even though he had a gun, he was able to kill without a gun.
We can’t control trucks but we can control guns but we choose to accept the status quo.
There is one thing, IMO, that must be asked before any "gun control" law is passed:
Will this new law mean that such a mass shooting will NEVER happen again?
If the proponents can not guarantee that result, the law should not be passed!
In the latest case, it appears the Air Force did not notify the proper authorities, so when the shooter lied on the background check form, it wasn't caught! Just like Carfax, the system can't work if the proper reports are not made!
So, the background check didn't prevent the shooting from happening.
In fact, many laws were broken, and none of them prevented the shooting!
Will a new law keep it from happening again? If not, why bother passing the law!
The standard isn’t to prevent every mass shooting, no law is perfect but the background checks certainly need improvement. Both this shooter and Dylan Roof should never have had access to guns.
Do phones really need text capability? How many children die a year because of texting and driving? Phones should make phone calls period. What you can say in a text you can say on the phone...with your eyes on the road. Unbelievable texting, any texting,has been aloud to go on this long
We can’t control trucks but we can control guns but we choose to accept the status quo.
Restricting gun access to the law abiding won't stop criminals from finding other ways to kill. I see a much bigger problem. We have a society with many violent people. No one seems to address that so easily.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
