Texas Church Shooting : Thread

a reply to: ketsuko

Also true, but sometimes, you can't tell someone is going to go out and commit murder with the gun you sell.

True.

Try real hard to forget what this guy did and look at his picture and you tell me his appearance alone raises red flags.

And? Deny him a right based solely on how he looks?

Or what do you propose?

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Xcathdra

The problem is that any law on the gun show loophole wouldn't stop what they are actually trying to aim at. If I have a firearm and agree to sell it to you for $20, then I do.

Agreed however as the seller you are not required to complete the sale. You can decide not to sell a firearm simply if you dont like the clothes the person is wearing.

Also true, but sometimes, you can't tell someone is going to go out and commit murder with the gun you sell. Try real hard to forget what this guy did and look at his picture and you tell me his appearance alone raises red flags.

A partial solution is to require background checks on ALL sales of firearms, whether done by FFL holders or P2P sales and regardless of location.

In that case I would suggest opening up NICS usage to regular citizens.

Easy enough by restricting the information return.

You run the info after confirming ID and the person doing the check says yes they can purchase or no they cant. Give the person who is denied a number to call and let them go from there.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Xcathdra

The problem is that any law on the gun show loophole wouldn't stop what they are actually trying to aim at. If I have a firearm and agree to sell it to you for $20, then I do.

Agreed however as the seller you are not required to complete the sale. You can decide not to sell a firearm simply if you dont like the clothes the person is wearing.

Also true, but sometimes, you can't tell someone is going to go out and commit murder with the gun you sell. Try real hard to forget what this guy did and look at his picture and you tell me his appearance alone raises red flags.

A partial solution is to require background checks on ALL sales of firearms, whether done by FFL holders or P2P sales and regardless of location.

That is reasonable.

Since it was a white male, I wonder how long it will take for the right to try an attempt to link this to the left or use some conspiracy theory?

Another week, another shooting. Is this the most mass shootings back to back in a sitting president first year or any year?

Just in case you bring up Chicago and shootings for Obama or Bush, Chicago is still around and their shootings are still happening.

Also why do the NRA and ATS member enjoy using Chicago as a rebuttal point. Having gun laws in place does not help if the surrounding cities or states do not have them. Just pop on in and buy a gun, then return home to Chicago and if you're a criminal then they got you covered to, just go to your resident gun dealer (someone who deals in stolen guns)who gets his/her guns out of state and brings them back to sell.


The truth — and lies — about Chicago's gun laws

Chicago does not have the strictest gun laws in the country. It’s time for gun lovers to stop spreading that lie.

Sorry, gun lovers, your attempts to use Chicago as a prop to bolster your claims that gun control laws do nothing to curb gun violence just don’t hold up. New York, in fact, has stricter gun laws on the books than Chicago. And guess what? Its homicide numbers are heading toward historic lows. Los Angeles has some pretty tough gun laws too. Its homicide numbers also pale compared with Chicago’s.

Those kinds of details don’t fit the conservative, pro-gun narrative, though. To use New York as a talking point, they’d have to admit that strict gun laws might actually have an impact on homicide rates.

We don’t make excuses for our ghastly homicide numbers in Chicago. With 762 people killed last year, no one has to remind us that we have a serious gun problem. We own it. And we have to do something about it.

But we are tired of Donald Trump and pro-gun advocates using our city to promote their political agenda.

U.S. Rep. Robin Kelly, D-Ill., who argues that the problem is Chicago being surrounded by red states that have completely surrendered to the pro-gun lobby. Rep. Kelly: Trump press secretary wrong about Chicago gun laws With no gun stores in Chicago and no background check loopholes for private sales, one thing is clear. The guns being used to kill people on the streets aren’t originating in Chicago. They’re coming from someplace else.

We could copy a lot of the post from the Las Vegas thread and paste them in this thread. Maybe do the same from every thread that occurs after a mass murder by gun(s).

It's repulsive to label these occassional mass shootings as the "new norm", but they seem be becoming accepted by society. A good measure of that will be how many hours the MSM devotes to this Texas church massacre over the coming week.

a reply to: Liquesence

I am just pointing out that if you are conducting a P2P sale that it's hard to know when you should deny a person based on appearance alone. Nothing more.

As others have pointed out, there are problems with trying to require background checks on every single sale. It opens the door to registration and could amount to registration.

Once the government knows where all the guns are, they also know where to go to confiscate them should they decide to pass a summary bill to make them illegal too. This has happened in other countries already.

OK maybe i missed it but was the screenshot of the ANON post fake?? or real ? anyone??

id like to get back on topic but y'all have made this thread fairly interesting.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Xcathdra

The problem is that any law on the gun show loophole wouldn't stop what they are actually trying to aim at. If I have a firearm and agree to sell it to you for $20, then I do.

Agreed however as the seller you are not required to complete the sale. You can decide not to sell a firearm simply if you dont like the clothes the person is wearing.

Also true, but sometimes, you can't tell someone is going to go out and commit murder with the gun you sell. Try real hard to forget what this guy did and look at his picture and you tell me his appearance alone raises red flags.

A partial solution is to require background checks on ALL sales of firearms, whether done by FFL holders or P2P sales and regardless of location.

In that case I would suggest opening up NICS usage to regular citizens.

Easy enough by restricting the information return.

You run the info after confirming ID and the person doing the check says yes they can purchase or no they cant. Give the person who is denied a number to call and let them go from there.

It would be the only way to ensure that the law was being followed without registration. What you are describing is a UBC. Everywhere it has been tried it has had zero net effect on crime and the law itself is effectively unenforceable. But for the purposes of peace of mind of the seller and society in general, access to NICS via the internet in order to make private sales would be a good move I think. The problem is that typical UBC makes the scheme expensive for the seller and the buyer because now they have to use an FFL. Well if they didn't need an FFL before then why now? Open up and expand the NICS system to accommodate private sales and boom "problem solved, problem staying solved".

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Xcathdra

This was in one of the articles posted via link

CNN reported that “Devin Kelley purchased the Ruger-AR556 rifle in April 2016 from an Academy Sports & Outdoors in San Antonio…Official says Kelley checked box to indicate he didn’t have any disqualifying criminal history on background paperwork.”

Seems he bought from a retailer

If i am not mistaken that falls under a rifle classification and not a hand gun classification. I dont believe a background check is required to sell that item in a retail store. Keep in mind state laws will vary.

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: EchoesInTime
Johnnie Lagendorff talks about chasing down the killer with the man who shot him with the shotgun.

It's a goddamn shame these guys didn't get to him before he went into the church.

What an amazingly horrible twist of fate. I hope he knows he did all he could.

a reply to: ketsuko

I posted a page back, info suggesting he bought from a retailer in 2016..so much for background checks..if the info is true.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Hmm, ok.
I can understand buying a hunting rifle or shotgun without a check, but that rifle he bought is pretty much an AR, am I correct?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Long gun sales are still required to have a NICS check done.

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Xcathdra

The problem is that any law on the gun show loophole wouldn't stop what they are actually trying to aim at. If I have a firearm and agree to sell it to you for $20, then I do.

Agreed however as the seller you are not required to complete the sale. You can decide not to sell a firearm simply if you dont like the clothes the person is wearing.

Also true, but sometimes, you can't tell someone is going to go out and commit murder with the gun you sell. Try real hard to forget what this guy did and look at his picture and you tell me his appearance alone raises red flags.

A partial solution is to require background checks on ALL sales of firearms, whether done by FFL holders or P2P sales and regardless of location.

Most of us are never going to go for that.

That same trick was used in the UK and Australia.

I understand where you are going but history shows you would have to be a fool to register your firearms with a government.

The 2nd amendment was applied to the individual. The sale of firearms can be regulated under federal law because the parts to make it are crossing state lines.

There are several states that require registration, Michigan being one of them. You fill out a 1 page form, they do a safety inspection on the gun, log the info and you are on your way.

Missouri doesnt require any registration.

I get the concern however, again, point out in the 2nd amendment where it says registration cannot be required.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Xcathdra

The problem is that any law on the gun show loophole wouldn't stop what they are actually trying to aim at. If I have a firearm and agree to sell it to you for $20, then I do.

Agreed however as the seller you are not required to complete the sale. You can decide not to sell a firearm simply if you dont like the clothes the person is wearing.

Also true, but sometimes, you can't tell someone is going to go out and commit murder with the gun you sell. Try real hard to forget what this guy did and look at his picture and you tell me his appearance alone raises red flags.

A partial solution is to require background checks on ALL sales of firearms, whether done by FFL holders or P2P sales and regardless of location.

"Shall not be infringed."
You been depressed? No guns for you!

and the Supreme court has stated requiring a background check is not an infringement on a persons right to bear arms. Point out in the 2nd amendment where it says a person can buy a guy the instant they come across one for sale?

Its like the TSA checkpoints. Freedom of travel within a state and across state lines is constitutionally protected. The method of travel however is not.

I am a supporter of the 2nd amendment. However we need a balance that doesnt infringe on a persons rights to bear arms and a persons right not to be killed because of mental health reasons or other.

The Founding Fathers supported our right to own cannons for example.

a reply to: jacquesdarippa


Don't bring up Chicago. The police are afraid of the gangsters. Totally different than what Paddock did in Las Vegas, or Devin Kelley did in Texas today.

ats acting weird this weekend

Stricter laws for domestic violence is really what might have prevented this more then anything else. Sounds like he only got detained for a year after he was convicted of abusing his wife and child, you'd probably get longer then a year for crimes much less serious.

I say 10 yrs. for abusing a child at the minimum, people that screwed up can't be fixed.

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Xcathdra

The problem is that any law on the gun show loophole wouldn't stop what they are actually trying to aim at. If I have a firearm and agree to sell it to you for $20, then I do.

Agreed however as the seller you are not required to complete the sale. You can decide not to sell a firearm simply if you dont like the clothes the person is wearing.

Also true, but sometimes, you can't tell someone is going to go out and commit murder with the gun you sell. Try real hard to forget what this guy did and look at his picture and you tell me his appearance alone raises red flags.

A partial solution is to require background checks on ALL sales of firearms, whether done by FFL holders or P2P sales and regardless of location.

"Shall not be infringed."
You been depressed? No guns for you!

Part of the problem is that we have a broken mental adjudication system. Mental illness and its adjudication are already disqualifying conditions for purchasing a firearm and is a question on the 4473. The problem is that the people who should be adjudicated aren't because of privacy laws. NICS NEVER gets this information as a result. There's already a strict system in place for the definition of dangerously mentally ill and depression isn't among them unless suicidal behavior has also been observed. We've been using this system for decades, but the FBI and NICS can't report what they don't know.

I think we can fix that.

That might be dependent on individual states. An adjudication by a court that you were involuntarily committed is attached to your criminal history.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yes, but the process of getting there is both a state and federal problem.

The mechanisms in place today cannot legally talk to each other.