Gun Control Laws - Where are we really? Where to go? (2 Viewers)

[The Commish]

I don't think that's the goal, so I'm not sure why you'd think it would. At any rate, I was merely pointing out that we already do for alcohol stores what you were asking for....kinda deflates the nonsensical "gotcha" events you attempt, but such is life

it shows that such coding doesn't do anything - so why do it ?

ask the reasons why such a move would be made .... its not to capture 0.01% of legal gun owners who would go shoot up somewhere, that we can easily agree on

I'll do this once. This is being done internationally. It was initiated by an international body. It will be incredibly helpful in many other places. It wont be helpful here because this sort of privacy was given away in the Patriot Act 20 years ago.

This is a move to come closer to what is already allowed in the US. I know many of you want this to be some big government overreach, but its not. Your opportunity to make it that was when the Patriot Act was put into motion. The same Patriot Act I am rather confident you cheered on at the time.

 

[Stealthycat]

It will be incredibly helpful in many other places

highly doubtful

unless the Govt uses that information to track who has guns and who doesn't so they can go get them when they want to ..... which is the entire point isn't it ?

 

[The Commish]

It will be incredibly helpful in many other places

highly doubtful

unless the Govt uses that information to track who has guns and who doesn't so they can go get them when they want to ..... which is the entire point isn't it ?

I can't imagine you have a clue how this would help in other countries. Based on your posts here, you seem to struggle with how things work here.

It's always amusing to watch your selective edits of other people's posts in attempt to change the narrative

 

[Mile High]

It will be incredibly helpful in many other places

highly doubtful

unless the Govt uses that information to track who has guns and who doesn't so they can go get them when they want to ..... which is the entire point isn't it ?

How is the government going to supposedly go to 40% or around 50 million homes and take their guns?

 

[The Commish]

It will be incredibly helpful in many other places

highly doubtful

unless the Govt uses that information to track who has guns and who doesn't so they can go get them when they want to ..... which is the entire point isn't it ?

How is the government going to supposedly go to 40% or around 50 million homes and take their guns?

The funny thing about this "concern" is that the gov't has had access to the information to do this since the Patriot Act and it hasn't happened....weird right?

 

[Stealthycat]

I can't imagine you have a clue how this would help in other countries. Based on your posts here, you seem to struggle with how things work here.

I think I remember it helped Germany in the 1930's ???

It's always amusing to watch your selective edits of other people's posts in attempt to change the narrative

I don't edit anyone posts ...... i reply to the parts that I need to address. I can copy it all - would you feel better if I did that ?

 

[The Commish]

I can't imagine you have a clue how this would help in other countries. Based on your posts here, you seem to struggle with how things work here.

I think I remember it helped Germany in the 1930's ???

It's always amusing to watch your selective edits of other people's posts in attempt to change the narrative

I don't edit anyone posts ...... i reply to the parts that I need to address. I can copy it all - would you feel better if I did that ?

Germany had credit card codes in the 1930s? What?? And yes, I'd appreciate if you're going to respond to me, quote the entirety of what I said. That way others can easily follow the deflections...thanks...like what you're attempting here with this nonsense.

 

[Stealthycat]

The funny thing about this "concern" is that the gov't has had access to the information to do this since the Patriot Act and it hasn't happened....weird right?

so its not new, this coding ?

 

[Stealthycat]

Germany had credit card codes in the 1930s? What?? And yes, I'd appreciate if you're going to respond to me, quote the entirety of what I said. That way others can easily follow the deflections...thanks

Disarmament of the German Jews - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

they had other ways to confiscate, we live in a new world where tracking is easier. Germany would have loved the technology today to track/seize what they wanted

 

[The Commish]

The funny thing about this "concern" is that the gov't has had access to the information to do this since the Patriot Act and it hasn't happened....weird right?

so its not new, this coding ?

It provides nothing new....no.....this is an international code being put in place by an international organization....it's not even US driven. I am SHOCKED you don't know the details

 

[Stealthycat]

It provides nothing new....no.....this is an international code being put in place by an international organization....it's not even US driven. I am SHOCKED you don't know the details

lets try this

A new credit card code is a first step toward preventing gun violence, advocates say

A new "merchant code" for credit cards will categorize purchases made at gun stores. But there are limitations on its usefulness — including that most guns in the U.S. aren't bought at such outlets.

www.npr.org

Gun control advocates are cheering a new change in the credit card industry that they say could help prevent gun violence.

This week, credit card companies Visa, Mastercard and American Express all said they would adopt a new code to categorize sales at gun shops, a move that advocates say will make it easier to flag suspicious gun sales.


odd that something you claim isn't providing anything new is .... well ... new

 

[-fish-]

It will be incredibly helpful in many other places

highly doubtful

unless the Govt uses that information to track who has guns and who doesn't so they can go get them when they want to ..... which is the entire point isn't it ?

How is the government going to supposedly go to 40% or around 50 million homes and take their guns?

Like Santa Claus, but in reverse.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Citing Bruen, Texas federal court strikes down law prohibiting persons who are under indictment for serious crimes from purchasing guns. The statute is unconstitutional because it does not align with "this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation" - the new standard the government must meet with any gun regulation.

After Bruen, the Government must prove that laws regulating conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text align with this Nation’s historical tradition. The Government does not meet that burden. Although not exhaustive, the Court’s historical survey finds little evidence that § 922—which prohibits those under felony indictment from obtaining a firearm—aligns with this Nation’s historical tradition. As a result, this Court holds that § 922 is unconstitutional.

 

[Stealthycat]

Citing Bruen, Texas federal court strikes down law prohibiting persons who are under indictment for serious crimes from purchasing guns. The statute is unconstitutional because it does not align with "this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation" - the new standard the government must meet with any gun regulation.

After Bruen, the Government must prove that laws regulating conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text align with this Nation’s historical tradition. The Government does not meet that burden. Although not exhaustive, the Court’s historical survey finds little evidence that § 922—which prohibits those under felony indictment from obtaining a firearm—aligns with this Nation’s historical tradition. As a result, this Court holds that § 922 is unconstitutional.

to be fair - under indictment isn't convicted right ?

what other constitutional rights would you take from people under indictment ?

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Citing Bruen, Texas federal court strikes down law prohibiting persons who are under indictment for serious crimes from purchasing guns. The statute is unconstitutional because it does not align with "this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation" - the new standard the government must meet with any gun regulation.

After Bruen, the Government must prove that laws regulating conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text align with this Nation’s historical tradition. The Government does not meet that burden. Although not exhaustive, the Court’s historical survey finds little evidence that § 922—which prohibits those under felony indictment from obtaining a firearm—aligns with this Nation’s historical tradition. As a result, this Court holds that § 922 is unconstitutional.

to be fair - under indictment isn't convicted right ?

what other constitutional rights would you take from people under indictment ?

None - the answer is none constitutional rights would I take from people under indictment.

 

[Stealthycat]

None - the answer is none constitutional rights would I take from people under indictment.

and I agree with that

innocent until proven guilty

 

[The Z Machine]

Can the government get a restraining order or something like that if they show that a person is a clear and present danger? Or do we just wait until they shoot up some place?

 

[BladeRunner]

Can the government get a restraining order or something like that if they show that a person is a clear and present danger? Or do we just wait until they shoot up some place?

How would you know in advance they're going to "shoot up some place" unless they specifically say they're going to? You just get done watching Minority Report and get all stoked about this new technology that's going to predict the future? Did you actually watch to the end of the movie?

 

[KarmaPolice]

Can the government get a restraining order or something like that if they show that a person is a clear and present danger? Or do we just wait until they shoot up some place?

I think it's state to state. There are ERPOs (Extreme Risk Protection Order) and they can notify people and remove guns/ammo.

How they know what they have in the house, to know they removed everything, I don't know. I wonder how successful they are because of that, and I've also seen examples of agents knowingly not removing all weapons.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Can the government get a restraining order or something like that if they show that a person is a clear and present danger? Or do we just wait until they shoot up some place?

How would you know in advance they're going to "shoot up some place" unless they specifically say they're going to? You just get done watching Minority Report and get all stoked about this new technology that's going to predict the future? Did you actually watch to the end of the movie?

I think he was asking if anything can be done before they commit a violent crime, or is it just after they commit said crime.

 

[-fish-]

Citing Bruen, Texas federal court strikes down law prohibiting persons who are under indictment for serious crimes from purchasing guns. The statute is unconstitutional because it does not align with "this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation" - the new standard the government must meet with any gun regulation.

After Bruen, the Government must prove that laws regulating conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text align with this Nation’s historical tradition. The Government does not meet that burden. Although not exhaustive, the Court’s historical survey finds little evidence that § 922—which prohibits those under felony indictment from obtaining a firearm—aligns with this Nation’s historical tradition. As a result, this Court holds that § 922 is unconstitutional.

to be fair - under indictment isn't convicted right ?

what other constitutional rights would you take from people under indictment ?

None - the answer is none constitutional rights would I take from people under indictment.

Travel.

 

[BladeRunner]

Can the government get a restraining order or something like that if they show that a person is a clear and present danger? Or do we just wait until they shoot up some place?

How would you know in advance they're going to "shoot up some place" unless they specifically say they're going to? You just get done watching Minority Report and get all stoked about this new technology that's going to predict the future? Did you actually watch to the end of the movie?

I think he was asking if anything can be done before they commit a violent crime, or is it just after they commit said crime.

Again, how do you know beforehand that they're going to commit a crime unless a) they tell you or b) they actually do it?

 

[KarmaPolice]

Can the government get a restraining order or something like that if they show that a person is a clear and present danger? Or do we just wait until they shoot up some place?

How would you know in advance they're going to "shoot up some place" unless they specifically say they're going to? You just get done watching Minority Report and get all stoked about this new technology that's going to predict the future? Did you actually watch to the end of the movie?

I think he was asking if anything can be done before they commit a violent crime, or is it just after they commit said crime.

Again, how do you know beforehand that they're going to commit a crime unless a) they tell you or b) they actually do it?

You don't know 100%. It's extreme risk, not will murder.
I would guess the majority is either domestic abuse and/or direct threats.

 

[-fish-]

The interpretation of "history and tradition" that Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas have latched onto is ridiculous. The Texas judge takes it even further.

In theory under their analysis, the Civil Rights Act should be unconstitutional because we didn't have a historical tradition of civil rights at the time the constitution was written.

Some articles on the Court's current approach:

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

 

[The Z Machine]

I would guess the majority is either domestic abuse and/or direct threats.

Yes. I'm talking credible, firect threats to others, especially in a domestic abuse situation.

Example: guy beats up wife and kids. Gets hauled in, buddy posts his bail. While in the clink, he tells the COs that he's gonna murder his wife and children when he gets out, giving out details on how he will do it and with what weapons.

Guy gets out of on bond. He's not convicted, he's awaiting trial. Does the government have to wait for him to follow through on his threats or can they do something proactive about it like limiting his access to firearms?

 

[the rover]

I would guess the majority is either domestic abuse and/or direct threats.

Yes. I'm talking credible, firect threats to others, especially in a domestic abuse situation.

Example: guy beats up wife and kids. Gets hauled in, buddy posts his bail. While in the clink, he tells the COs that he's gonna murder his wife and children when he gets out, giving out details on how he will do it and with what weapons.

Guy gets out of on bond. He's not convicted, he's awaiting trial. Does the government have to wait for him to follow through on his threats or can they do something proactive about it like limiting his access to firearms?

Depends what state you're in.

 

[The Z Machine]

I would guess the majority is either domestic abuse and/or direct threats.

Yes. I'm talking credible, firect threats to others, especially in a domestic abuse situation.

Example: guy beats up wife and kids. Gets hauled in, buddy posts his bail. While in the clink, he tells the COs that he's gonna murder his wife and children when he gets out, giving out details on how he will do it and with what weapons.

Guy gets out of on bond. He's not convicted, he's awaiting trial. Does the government have to wait for him to follow through on his threats or can they do something proactive about it like limiting his access to firearms?

Depends what state you're in.

But is there a "history and tradition" of getting law enforcement involved like this? Or is there "history and tradition" of law enforcement looking the other way as abusers beat up their families and threaten them with weapons?

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I would guess the majority is either domestic abuse and/or direct threats.

Yes. I'm talking credible, firect threats to others, especially in a domestic abuse situation.

Example: guy beats up wife and kids. Gets hauled in, buddy posts his bail. While in the clink, he tells the COs that he's gonna murder his wife and children when he gets out, giving out details on how he will do it and with what weapons.

Guy gets out of on bond. He's not convicted, he's awaiting trial. Does the government have to wait for him to follow through on his threats or can they do something proactive about it like limiting his access to firearms?

Not really responsive to your question, but just clarifying the new Texas case I posted above - that case involved a federal statute that has been in existence since 1938. The statute prohibits purchase of firearms for people under indictment for "serious" crimes - from the statute, crimes punishable by more than one year imprisonment. The law does not apply to possession of a gun. If the person already has a gun, or can legally use one that someone else owns, this law wouldn't affect that behavior. It only restricts new purchases of guns while the indictment is pending. Although the Bruen standard is obviously extremely vague and confusing ("the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation"), we now know that, according to one judge in Texas, 85 years does not establish an "historical tradition" of gun regulation.

 

[-fish-]

I would guess the majority is either domestic abuse and/or direct threats.

Yes. I'm talking credible, firect threats to others, especially in a domestic abuse situation.

Example: guy beats up wife and kids. Gets hauled in, buddy posts his bail. While in the clink, he tells the COs that he's gonna murder his wife and children when he gets out, giving out details on how he will do it and with what weapons.

Guy gets out of on bond. He's not convicted, he's awaiting trial. Does the government have to wait for him to follow through on his threats or can they do something proactive about it like limiting his access to firearms?

Not really responsive to your question, but just clarifying the new Texas case I posted above - that case involved a federal statute that has been in existence since 1938. The statute prohibits purchase of firearms for people under indictment for "serious" crimes - from the statute, crimes punishable by more than one year imprisonment. The law does not apply to possession of a gun. If the person already has a gun, or can legally use one that someone else owns, this law wouldn't affect that behavior. It only restricts new purchases of guns while the indictment is pending. Although the Bruen standard is obviously extremely vague and confusing ("the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation"), we now know that, according to one judge in Texas, 85 years does not establish an "historical tradition" of gun regulation.

I think the statute in Bruen was around 105 years old. Not good enough.

 

[The Z Machine]

Yes. I'm talking credible, firect threats to others, especially in a domestic abuse situation.

Example: guy beats up wife and kids. Gets hauled in, buddy posts his bail. While in the clink, he tells the COs that he's gonna murder his wife and children when he gets out, giving out details on how he will do it and with what weapons.

Guy gets out of on bond. He's not convicted, he's awaiting trial. Does the government have to wait for him to follow through on his threats or can they do something proactive about it like limiting his access to firearms?

Something similar happened recently here.

- guy is convicted of felony child abuse in 2013 (should have resulted in him not possessing firearms)
- guy is arrested for assault or threats with a deadly weapon, no conviction
- police are called multiple times for domestic abuse
- restraining orders are applied for but eventually dropped (dropped before verifying whether or not firearms were present in the home)
- domestic abuse cases are never prosecuted because the victim withdraws their statements
- husband and wife own a local restaurant, lots of verbal and minor physical abuse between both partners, the general public is aware of their volatility
- wife files for divorce earlier this year
- this past Sunday the husband shoots the wife at point blank range with a shotgun in the back and the face, she dies
- one son calls police from the home, other son runs next door crying and neighbors call police
- police show up and husband is on balcony with a gun, cops negotiate for a while, ends up with multiple shots fired, husband in hospital with non life threatening injuries
- husband arrested for intentional homicide and felon in possession of firearms, he had one handgun on him, plus the shotgun, and another handgun in the home
- sheriff holds a press conference, says that the reason the guns were never confiscated and the husband never held accountable for prior domestic violence is because of how the system is set up

It is really sad the woman lost her life and 2 boys lost their mother. And they served award winning pizza and wings (NY transplants) that the community doesn't get to enjoy anymore. Lots of people in the community are pissed because it was a very open secret the abuse and violence the husband was capable of and because the current laws were not enforced for whatever reason a 48 year old woman paid with her life.

I am not sure if any additional laws would have made a difference. There has to be a better way of enforcing current laws and ensuring the safety of victims of abuse though.

Damn, that's tragic. The trauma to those kids...

Maybe there should be a way for the government to confiscate firearms? How else do they enforce the "felon cannot possess firearms" restriction?

 

[urbanhack]

So let me get this straight. Rs proclaim it's not about the guns, it's about about other factors such as mental health... Why did 205 Republicans vote against this bill???

The House passed legislation that imposes new fines on insurers that don’t follow federal mental health pay parity requirements, despite opposition from some in the insurance industry.

Lawmakers voted 220 to 205 on Thursday to pass the Mental Health Matters Act, which also seeks to bolster youth mental health needs. The bill now heads to the Senate to an uncertain fate amid stiff Republican opposition. Rep. Mark DeSaulnier, D-California, the legislation’s lead sponsor, said the legislation is needed to get plans in line and meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act.

“These plans are failing to maintain parity between behavioral health and physical health benefits as required by statute,” he said on the House floor Thursday.

An analysis from the nonpartisan scorekeeper Congressional Budget Office estimated that a small number of insurers would get fined, estimating only collecting $29 million over the next decade in the new penalties. However, the legislation earned major pushback from the ERISA Industry Committee, which represents large employer plan sponsors.

 

[BladeRunner]

So let me get this straight. Rs proclaim it's not about the guns, it's about about other factors such as mental health... Why did 205 Republicans vote against this bill???

The House passed legislation that imposes new fines on insurers that don’t follow federal mental health pay parity requirements, despite opposition from some in the insurance industry.

Lawmakers voted 220 to 205 on Thursday to pass the Mental Health Matters Act, which also seeks to bolster youth mental health needs. The bill now heads to the Senate to an uncertain fate amid stiff Republican opposition. Rep. Mark DeSaulnier, D-California, the legislation’s lead sponsor, said the legislation is needed to get plans in line and meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act.

“These plans are failing to maintain parity between behavioral health and physical health benefits as required by statute,” he said on the House floor Thursday.

An analysis from the nonpartisan scorekeeper Congressional Budget Office estimated that a small number of insurers would get fined, estimating only collecting $29 million over the next decade in the new penalties. However, the legislation earned major pushback from the ERISA Industry Committee, which represents large employer plan sponsors.

Didn't the legislation pass?

 

[The Z Machine]

Didn't the legislation pass?

So, we shouldn't call out their hypocrisy here? Or should the opposition party just always vote no on anything proposed by the majority? I don't know what your point is.

 

[BladeRunner]

Didn't the legislation pass?

So, we shouldn't call out their hypocrisy here? Or should the opposition party just always vote no on anything proposed by the majority? I don't know what your point is.

You're complaining about passed legislation that you wanted?

 

[KarmaPolice]

So let me get this straight. Rs proclaim it's not about the guns, it's about about other factors such as mental health... Why did 205 Republicans vote against this bill???

The House passed legislation that imposes new fines on insurers that don’t follow federal mental health pay parity requirements, despite opposition from some in the insurance industry.

Lawmakers voted 220 to 205 on Thursday to pass the Mental Health Matters Act, which also seeks to bolster youth mental health needs. The bill now heads to the Senate to an uncertain fate amid stiff Republican opposition. Rep. Mark DeSaulnier, D-California, the legislation’s lead sponsor, said the legislation is needed to get plans in line and meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act.

“These plans are failing to maintain parity between behavioral health and physical health benefits as required by statute,” he said on the House floor Thursday.

An analysis from the nonpartisan scorekeeper Congressional Budget Office estimated that a small number of insurers would get fined, estimating only collecting $29 million over the next decade in the new penalties. However, the legislation earned major pushback from the ERISA Industry Committee, which represents large employer plan sponsors.

1. I assume a lot is just because the opposition wants it.
2. What is actually in the bill - are there legitimate beefs about something, too much pork?
3. Another big reason is probably we've spent too much this administration as it is sort of reasoning.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Didn't the legislation pass?

So, we shouldn't call out their hypocrisy here? Or should the opposition party just always vote no on anything proposed by the majority? I don't know what your point is.

You're complaining about passed legislation that you wanted?

I thought his question was clear. Sure, it's good it passed. Sometimes it's surprising to people when politicians vote down things they think will have a + impact on the country. So it's a fair question to ask why these 205 thought it was a bad enough bill to vote against it.

Also the big point was exactly what he said - we hear A LOT that it's not guns, it's mental health. Mental health is usually at the top of the list when talking about some issues. So it looks really bad when the drum is being beaten for that, but then there is a strong vote against something aimed to address it.

 

[The Z Machine]

Didn't the legislation pass?

So, we shouldn't call out their hypocrisy here? Or should the opposition party just always vote no on anything proposed by the majority? I don't know what your point is.

You're complaining about passed legislation that you wanted?

I'm not complaining about the legislation (although to be fair, I haven't read it). I'm complaining about the people who said they want increased resources for mental health but then vote against those measures.

 

[BladeRunner]

Didn't the legislation pass?

So, we shouldn't call out their hypocrisy here? Or should the opposition party just always vote no on anything proposed by the majority? I don't know what your point is.

You're complaining about passed legislation that you wanted?

I'm not complaining about the legislation (although to be fair, I haven't read it). I'm complaining about the people who said they want increased resources for mental health but then vote against those measures.

I haven't read it either. Was that what was all in the legislation? Or was there something else in there that was snuck in? Are we getting the full context here? Or is this just another cherry-picked fake outrage point?

Just asking, as I have no idea.

 

[The Z Machine]

From: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/7780

Mental Health Matters Act

Summary: This bill requires certain federal actions to increase access to mental and behavioral health care. Among other provisions, the bill creates various grants to increase the number of school-based mental health services providers, establishes requirements for institutions of higher education concerning students with disabilities, and prohibits arbitration and discretionary clauses in employer-sponsored benefit plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

From CBO:
H.R. 7780 would expand resources to address the mental health of K-12 students and staff members. The bill would authorize several grant programs to support school-based mental health services and providers. It would require postsecondary institutions that receive federal financial assistance to develop policies to identify and provide special accommodations to individuals with disabilities. Finally, it would prohibit mandatory arbitration clauses, class action waivers, and representation waivers in employer-sponsored benefit plans under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

CBO estimates that the bill would have no effect on direct spending and would increase revenues over the 2022-2032 period. The bill contains provisions that would increase spending subject to appropriation, but CBO has not completed an estimate of those costs.
---------------
Honestly, I'm not sure how this bill will increase revenues nor have any affect on direct spending when there are $$ amounts in the text of the bill. Perhaps those opposed to the bill didn't like the amount appropriated for these actions, but I haven't seen it. Certainly the gist of the bill is to improve mental health treatment and access for minors in school. If that will help school shootings then why are people opposed?

 

[the rover]

Another mass shooting. Biden calls for more to be done. Nothing will happen.

 

[the rover]

Oh, and for the "good guy with a gun" crowd and armed LEO was one of the victims. Guns don't prevent gun violence.

 

[sho nuff]

Didn't the legislation pass?

So, we shouldn't call out their hypocrisy here? Or should the opposition party just always vote no on anything proposed by the majority? I don't know what your point is.

You're complaining about passed legislation that you wanted?

I thought his question was clear. Sure, it's good it passed. Sometimes it's surprising to people when politicians vote down things they think will have a + impact on the country. So it's a fair question to ask why these 205 thought it was a bad enough bill to vote against it.

Also the big point was exactly what he said - we hear A LOT that it's not guns, it's mental health. Mental health is usually at the top of the list when talking about some issues. So it looks really bad when the drum is being beaten for that, but then there is a strong vote against something aimed to address it.

Yeah...in another thread the question is do we vote with our wallets.
Sometimes there is something a little more indirect to the wallet and a cause that is important. Seems mental health is more important (at the moment) to the Ds than to Rs with votes like this. And its an important issue to me...one that I feel the left is doing better on than the right.

 

[belljr]

Allegedly 7 guards posted in the latest school shooting...... sigh and sad

im sure there will be the same arguments the guards worked to prevent more killings instead of how about no killings.

I'm not anti gun but **** likes this just makes my blood boil...... ****ing cowards blasting away at a school

 

[Max Power]

Oh, and for the "good guy with a gun" crowd and armed LEO was one of the victims. Guns don't prevent gun violence.

Where did they say he was armed? He was off-duty and ambushed in his personal vehicle.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Allegedly 7 guards posted in the latest school shooting...... sigh and sad

im sure there will be the same arguments the guards worked to prevent more killings instead of how about no killings.

I'm not anti gun but **** likes this just makes my blood boil...... ****ing cowards blasting away at a school

You can't legislate your way out of this. People who are going to shoot up a school don't care about gun regulations.

 

[The Z Machine]

Allegedly 7 guards posted in the latest school shooting...... sigh and sad

im sure there will be the same arguments the guards worked to prevent more killings instead of how about no killings.

I'm not anti gun but **** likes this just makes my blood boil...... ****ing cowards blasting away at a school

You can't legislate your way out of this. People who are going to shoot up a school don't care about gun regulations.

You don't know that. We haven't actually tried it.

 

[The Commish]

You don't know that. We haven't actually tried it.

It's just absurd that this logic is applied here. If one applies that same logic to literally ANY other law, the flaw is easily seen, however, with guns, it becomes perfectly logical. It's so ridiculously weird. Is it going to stop all of them? No. Is there a single law ever created that stops criminals 100% of the time, no. And around and around and around and around we go.

 

[The General]

Allegedly 7 guards posted in the latest school shooting...... sigh and sad

im sure there will be the same arguments the guards worked to prevent more killings instead of how about no killings.

I'm not anti gun but **** likes this just makes my blood boil...... ****ing cowards blasting away at a school

You can't legislate your way out of this. People who are going to shoot up a school don't care about gun regulations.

Make purchasing a gun very difficult. Have very stiff rules for having a gun in public. Replace all the potheads they are releasing from jail with people who break those rules.

May need some tweaking but let's start here.

 

[John123]

Joe Biden:

My legislation says there can be no more than eight bullets in a round, okay

Maybe he shouldn't be the person with final say on our gun laws......

 

[KarmaPolice]

Allegedly 7 guards posted in the latest school shooting...... sigh and sad

im sure there will be the same arguments the guards worked to prevent more killings instead of how about no killings.

I'm not anti gun but **** likes this just makes my blood boil...... ****ing cowards blasting away at a school

You can't legislate your way out of this. People who are going to shoot up a school don't care about gun regulations.

And people doing that often expect or want to die in the process or after. School guards probably aren't a huge deterrent. If anything it could make them head in with more guns and ammo expecting a shootout.