Shooting at First Baptist Church in Texas

[Tambora]

We have background check regulations.
Obviously they don't stop crazy shooter from getting a gun.
We gave gun registration regulations.
Obviously they don't stop crazy shooters from getting a gun.

Our government cannot even handle the regulations we already have.
What makes anyone think adding MORE regulations is going to make the government do a better job with enforcing MORE regulations, when they can't even handle the regulations we have now?

All these regulations are doing is giving folks someone else to blame besides the shooter himself ----- blame the government.
Why blame the government for what a crazy shooter does?
How is it the governments fault that some go berserk?

 

[Tambora]

Ben Shapiro made a good point and said it well.

To burden an already inefficient government with more restrictions to have to keep up will not make the government more efficient, but less efficient than they already are.

 

[Tambora]

Don't ya get kinda sick and tired of the wusses that want to depend on a government to do things for them that us citizens as a community should be doing for ourselves?

I just can't help but to continue to hold up those two brave citizens for what they did to immobilize the church shooter.
One man (Stephen Willeford) grabbed his gun and went running barefoot, and was loading his gun ON THE RUN as he was running barefoot toward open gunfire.
Didn't know what was ahead, just knew his community needed help and he responded without hesitation.

He didn't pull out his phone to video it for facebook.
His only thought was to HELP.

And when the church shooter was able to get to his SUV and drive off, another citizen (Johnny Langendorff) drives up, picks up the barefoot man and they both chase down the shooter and end his sorry life.

That's the AMERICA we need to make great again.
The sooner the better.


Kudos to you two good American citizens!
Stephen Willeford (left) and Johnny Langendorff (right)

 

[Tambora]

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes, most pro-gunners don't know what it really feels like to shoot someone and how they would feel once their life changes because of the consequences. They don't think ahead. They don't think.

Most gun enthusiasts I know are acutely aware of the damage a gun can do, and are pretty careful about not putting anyone in danger. It's the fools who buy a gun without understanding how dangerous they are, that cause most of the deaths.

 

[Nihilo]

We have background check regulations.
Obviously they don't stop crazy shooter from getting a gun.
We gave gun registration regulations.
Obviously they don't stop crazy shooters from getting a gun.

Agreed.

Our government cannot even handle the regulations we already have.
What makes anyone think adding MORE regulations is going to make the government do a better job with enforcing MORE regulations, when they can't even handle the regulations we have now?

The idea would be to put the onus on law abiding gun owners to do some of the legwork in making sure we're doing what we can do, to keep criminals from easily and illegally obtaining guns. Because they're criminals, it's a crime for them to buy a gun in a private sale already, closing the quote-unquote gun show loophole, is trusting that law abiding gun owners will continue to be law abiding, and force private buyers to undergo a criminal background check. Right now, I know that FFLs are the primary way to have this check done. Maybe we can make an app for smartphones that will run bona fide FBI criminal background checks for private gun sales. I don't know.

All these regulations are doing is giving folks someone else to blame besides the shooter himself ----- blame the government.
Why blame the government for what a crazy shooter does?
How is it the governments fault that some go berserk?

The government should have told the government that Kelley was a criminal, so that the FBI criminal background check actually worked, and told the FFL to occupy Kelley while the police got there to arrest him for trying to buy a gun, Kelley being a criminal.

 

[Tambora]

The government should have told the government that Kelley was a criminal, so that the FBI criminal background check actually worked, and told the FFL to occupy Kelley while the police got there to arrest him for trying to buy a gun, Kelley being a criminal.

Wouldn't have mattered if they told the FBI anything or not, as the FBI did not respond to the application he filled out at the gun shop anyway.

My best GUESS as to why the FBI fails to respond at all, or too late, to so many applications is probably the same with most businesses ------ not enough manpower to get the job done satisfactorily so they prioritize and skim by the best they can.
So your taxes will probably go back up some more to cover the cost of them having enough manpower to just do what regulations we already have.
And if we add more regulations, it will take more manpower and more taxes to pay the cost of it.

 

[Nihilo]

Wouldn't have mattered if they told the FBI anything or not, as the FBI did not respond to the application he filled out at the gun shop anyway.

My best GUESS as to why the FBI fails to respond at all, or too late, to so many applications is probably the same with most businesses ------ not enough manpower to get the job done satisfactorily so they prioritize and skim by the best they can.
So your taxes will probably go back up some more to cover the cost of them having enough manpower to just do what regulations we already have.
And if we add more regulations, it will take more manpower and more taxes to pay the cost of it.

Every criminal background check I've undergone to buy a gun from an FFL was a matter of a few minutes. I walk up to the counter with my new gun or point to it behind the counter, I sign the form that I'm not a criminal, the FFL calls in to check me, I get the thumbs up, I pay, I'm happy.

 

[Nihilo]

Most gun enthusiasts I know are acutely aware of the damage a gun can do, and are pretty careful about not putting anyone in danger. It's the fools who buy a gun without understanding how dangerous they are, that cause most of the deaths.

That, and the murderers. The murderers are the people shooting up mass shooting shooting rampages domestic terrorism. America has a lot of murderers, and I'll be damned if I let them determine that I or any other law abiding peaceable Americans, can't possess and carry, as many standard issue military small arms, as we can afford and hold, without at least speaking my mind whenever I can.

 

[Tambora]

Every criminal background check I've undergone to buy a gun from an FFL was a matter of a few minutes. I walk up to the counter with my new gun or point to it behind the counter, I sign the form that I'm not a criminal, the FFL calls in to check me, I get the thumbs up, I pay, I'm happy.

Yep, they respond to some quickly, some too late, and some not at all.
They have 3 days to respond, and after that the gun shop owner has no legal authority to refuse the sell.

I think I already mentioned earlier that some reporters did a piece on gun shops not too long ago, and they were shocked to see just how many applications were not responded to at all, and several more that were responded to too late.
Stacks of them.
And they only interviewed a few gun shops.
No telling what it's like nationwide.

 

[Nihilo]

Yep, they respond to some quickly, some too late, and some not at all.
They have 3 days to respond, and after that the gun shop owner has no legal authority to refuse the sell.

I think I already mentioned earlier that some reporters did a piece on gun shops not too long ago, and they were shocked to see just how many applications were not responded to at all, and several more that were responded to too late.
Stacks of them.
And they only interviewed a few gun shops.
No telling what it's like nationwide.

So what you're saying is, rather than jump to change the gun laws, to make them stricter, that we should focus on enforcing the current laws, that have been on the books already for many years, and that if we did that, then that alone would significantly address the criminals-getting-guns problem?

:think:

 

[The Barbarian]

That, and the murderers. The murderers are the people shooting up mass shooting shooting rampages domestic terrorism.

Hmmm... mostly, I think, it's morons, people committing suicide,or people who grab a gun in a moment of anger or fear. :think: I guess "morons" sums it up nicely.

About twice as many suicides as homicides...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian supposes:
That being said, if all guns disappeared, we'd probably be killing about the same number of people.

So how do you reduce that?

[conservative]KILL THEM ALL!!![/conservative]

Oh, wait...

 

[Tambora]

So what you're saying is, rather than jump to change the gun laws, to make them stricter, that we should focus on enforcing the current laws, that have been on the books already for many years, and that if we did that, then that alone would significantly address the criminals-getting-guns problem?

:think:

I have no idea, as I have no idea how many of those unanswered applications should have been rejected.

But yeah, if we don't have the manpower to complete each application successfully as it is, then what good would it do to add more regulations?
They'll just get further behind.

And I need to look it up and see would happen if, in the case of the church shooter, he had purchased guns BEFORE he was restricted due to his assault charges on his wife and kid.
I'm not sure what they do about those legal purchases.
Would they confiscate them when he was arrested for abuse????

Of course, being born and raised in TEXAS, I don't see him buying a gun as being the real concern.
Cause he could have borrowed one from any of his friends, and I find it unlikely that none of his TEXAS friends had a gun.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Then what is the point of having a Constitution if the laws could be changed on the whim of whoever is in power? That doesn't make sense. That would lead to mob rule.

Some rules are meant to be amended. Those founding fathers did not understand how things would change in the future in so many ways. From the types of weapons that would be developed to the fact that Americans would one day enjoy a unique position in the world. And crucially that US citizens would have national security against foreign foes unequalled on the worlds stage. If they knew all of this, the second amendment would have been stated in a fashion so that future amendments could be made to reflect the changing national security situation. The last thing they would have wanted was US citizens shooting each other on mass like they are.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

So what you're saying is, rather than jump to change the gun laws, to make them stricter, that we should focus on enforcing the current laws, that have been on the books already for many years, and that if we did that, then that alone would significantly address the criminals-getting-guns problem?

:think:

Yes, now your starting to talk sense. This would be a start. I would not think taking away guns immediately (as you assume I think) would help, that would just cause a violent uproar, but by 'chipping' away at the current problem by taking small steps like that would help.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Most gun enthusiasts I know are acutely aware of the damage a gun can do, and are pretty careful about not putting anyone in danger. It's the fools who buy a gun without understanding how dangerous they are, that cause most of the deaths.

They are all pro-gunners and therefore support the 'foolish' gun owners by default.

All these parents thought they we're responsible enough to own a gun: https://www.google.co.uk/search?biw.......0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.dcM2Z72z3So

 

[everready]

Yes, now your starting to talk sense. This would be a start. I would not think taking away guns immediately (as you assume I think) would help, that would just cause a violent uproar, but by 'chipping' away at the current problem by taking small steps like that would help.

In other words..

“The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.”

- Who made that statement?

everready

 

[Nihilo]

I have no idea, as I have no idea how many of those unanswered applications should have been rejected.

But yeah, if we don't have the manpower to complete each application successfully as it is, then what good would it do to add more regulations?
They'll just get further behind.

And I need to look it up and see would happen if, in the case of the church shooter, he had purchased guns BEFORE he was restricted due to his assault charges on his wife and kid.
I'm not sure what they do about those legal purchases.
Would they confiscate them when he was arrested for abuse????

Of course, being born and raised in TEXAS, I don't see him buying a gun as being the real concern.
Cause he could have borrowed one from any of his friends, and I find it unlikely that none of his TEXAS friends had a gun.

If the Second Amendment means anything at all, it means NO registration. You can't defend yourself against your own government, if your own government knows where all your guns are. We're just going to have to figure out another way. Perhaps criminals forfeit their right to privacy also, and their right against illegal search and seizure, along with their RKBA, when they choose to commit a crime.

 

[Tambora]

If the Second Amendment means anything at all, it means NO registration.

Yep.
Do we know of any restrictions the founding founders made to any of the citizens restricting them from owning a gun?
Not that I know of.
And they were certainly aware that the world has some crazies.

You can't defend yourself against your own government, if your own government knows where all your guns are.

It does swing it to their favor.
And even more so when they start taking them away from us.

We're just going to have to figure out another way. Perhaps criminals forfeit their right to privacy also, and their right against illegal search and seizure, along with their RKBA, when they choose to commit a crime.

I don't like that.
If a person has acquired cash and property legally, then they shouldn't have to forfeit it.
They should only be penalized for the nature of the crime they committed, not for what they did legally.