GUN CONTROL laws ARE in place to PREVENT the Texas Church Shooting.AIR FORCE DID NOT FOLLOW THE LAWS

[ColonelAngus]

Air Force investigators have interviewed 100 people since former airman killed 26 in Texas

INSTEAD of making NEW LAWS that people don't follow....maybe we can actually FOLLOW THE GUN CONTROL LAWS WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS.

THEY WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE SHOOTING IF THEY WERE FOLLOWED.

 

[Chuz Life]

Air Force investigators have interviewed 100 people since former airman killed 26 in Texas

INSTEAD of making NEW LAWS that people don't follow....maybe we can actually FOLLOW THE GUN CONTROL LAWS WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS.

THEY WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE SHOOTING IF THEY WERE FOLLOWED.

I appreciate how the air force fucked up and how important it is to enforce existing laws. However, I disagree that doing so will actually "prevent" these kinds of shootings.

Criminals who are intent on a shooting like this could just As easily get their hands on a gun in all sorts of other ways. Theft and buying them on the streets being the most likely.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Air Force investigators have interviewed 100 people since former airman killed 26 in Texas

INSTEAD of making NEW LAWS that people don't follow....maybe we can actually FOLLOW THE GUN CONTROL LAWS WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS.

THEY WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE SHOOTING IF THEY WERE FOLLOWED.

I appreciate how the air force fucked up and how important it is to enforce existing laws. However, I disagree that doing so will actually "prevent" these kinds of shootings.

Criminals who are intent on a shooting like this could just As easily get their hands on a gun in all sorts of other ways. Theft and buying them on the streets being the most likely.

Your point is valid, but the guy should not have legally been able to obtain those weapons. Had he needed to resort to other means to obtain firearms,who knows what the result would have been.

We need to enforce existing laws before passing more laws.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Air Force investigators have interviewed 100 people since former airman killed 26 in Texas

INSTEAD of making NEW LAWS that people don't follow....maybe we can actually FOLLOW THE GUN CONTROL LAWS WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS.

THEY WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE SHOOTING IF THEY WERE FOLLOWED.

So, you're saying gun control laws DO prevent things like this, when "followed" or enforced.


Am I hearing that right?

 

[Chuz Life]

Air Force investigators have interviewed 100 people since former airman killed 26 in Texas

INSTEAD of making NEW LAWS that people don't follow....maybe we can actually FOLLOW THE GUN CONTROL LAWS WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS.

THEY WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE SHOOTING IF THEY WERE FOLLOWED.

So, you're saying gun control laws DO prevent things like this, when "followed" or enforced.


Am I hearing that right?

Yes. Deep

If criminals would just follow the laws. . . They will work.

Fucking duh.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Air Force investigators have interviewed 100 people since former airman killed 26 in Texas

INSTEAD of making NEW LAWS that people don't follow....maybe we can actually FOLLOW THE GUN CONTROL LAWS WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS.

THEY WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE SHOOTING IF THEY WERE FOLLOWED.

So, you're saying gun control laws DO prevent things like this, when "followed" or enforced.


Am I hearing that right?

Yes. Deep

If criminals would just follow the laws. . . They will work.

Fucking duh.

Oh no, it goes a little further than that. Not just that "they would work", but that they DO work.

 

[Timmy]

It’s not just the Air Force. It’s the other branches too.

 

[Rustic]

Air Force investigators have interviewed 100 people since former airman killed 26 in Texas

INSTEAD of making NEW LAWS that people don't follow....maybe we can actually FOLLOW THE GUN CONTROL LAWS WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS.

THEY WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE SHOOTING IF THEY WERE FOLLOWED.

So, you're saying gun control laws DO prevent things like this, when "followed" or enforced.


Am I hearing that right?

Yes. Deep

If criminals would just follow the laws. . . They will work.

Fucking duh.

Oh no, it goes a little further than that. Not just that "they would work", but that they DO work.

Na, Anything a progressive thanks up is frivolous in nature

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Air Force investigators have interviewed 100 people since former airman killed 26 in Texas

INSTEAD of making NEW LAWS that people don't follow....maybe we can actually FOLLOW THE GUN CONTROL LAWS WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS.

THEY WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE SHOOTING IF THEY WERE FOLLOWED.

So, you're saying gun control laws DO prevent things like this, when "followed" or enforced.


Am I hearing that right?

Yes. Deep

If criminals would just follow the laws. . . They will work.

Fucking duh.

Oh no, it goes a little further than that. Not just that "they would work", but that they DO work.

Na, Anything a progressive thanks up is frivolous in nature

You sound smart.

 

[Jamesonrules]

Air Force investigators have interviewed 100 people since former airman killed 26 in Texas

INSTEAD of making NEW LAWS that people don't follow....maybe we can actually FOLLOW THE GUN CONTROL LAWS WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS.

THEY WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE SHOOTING IF THEY WERE FOLLOWED.

No chance. He would have just bought the guns in the parking lot at a gun show. The guns are the problem, not the laws.

 

[Chuz Life]

Air Force investigators have interviewed 100 people since former airman killed 26 in Texas

INSTEAD of making NEW LAWS that people don't follow....maybe we can actually FOLLOW THE GUN CONTROL LAWS WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS.

THEY WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE SHOOTING IF THEY WERE FOLLOWED.

No chance. He would have just bought the guns in the parking lot at a gun show. The guns are the problem, not the laws.

And the criminals. . .

Where do they fall on your list as being a problem?

 

[Jamesonrules]

Air Force investigators have interviewed 100 people since former airman killed 26 in Texas

INSTEAD of making NEW LAWS that people don't follow....maybe we can actually FOLLOW THE GUN CONTROL LAWS WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS.

THEY WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE SHOOTING IF THEY WERE FOLLOWED.

No chance. He would have just bought the guns in the parking lot at a gun show. The guns are the problem, not the laws.

And the criminals. . .

Where do they fall on your list as being a problem?

Crime is a problem, guns don't solve that. They do however kill 30,000 Americans a year.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Air Force investigators have interviewed 100 people since former airman killed 26 in Texas

INSTEAD of making NEW LAWS that people don't follow....maybe we can actually FOLLOW THE GUN CONTROL LAWS WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS.

THEY WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE SHOOTING IF THEY WERE FOLLOWED.

Not true. The killer could have gotten his guns in private sales, legally sold, with no questions asked.

 

[Reasonable]

Air Force investigators have interviewed 100 people since former airman killed 26 in Texas

INSTEAD of making NEW LAWS that people don't follow....maybe we can actually FOLLOW THE GUN CONTROL LAWS WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS.

THEY WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE SHOOTING IF THEY WERE FOLLOWED.

As long as citizens can obtain military type weapons that should only be used by the police and our military NOTHING IS IN PLACE.
Our North American neighbors to the south and north don’t have these types of slaughters like we do.
As of the most recent massacre in Texas, Columbine is no longer one of the 10 worst mass shootings in US history. 3 of the top 5 are all in the last year & a half.

Republicans and fellow wingnuts solution: Do Nothing.

 

[Chuz Life]

Air Force investigators have interviewed 100 people since former airman killed 26 in Texas

INSTEAD of making NEW LAWS that people don't follow....maybe we can actually FOLLOW THE GUN CONTROL LAWS WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS.

THEY WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE SHOOTING IF THEY WERE FOLLOWED.

No chance. He would have just bought the guns in the parking lot at a gun show. The guns are the problem, not the laws.

And the criminals. . .

Where do they fall on your list as being a problem?

Crime is a problem, guns don't solve that. They do however kill 30,000 Americans a year.

How many of those 30000 killed per year are being killed by guns that have no operator?

 

[Chuz Life]

Air Force investigators have interviewed 100 people since former airman killed 26 in Texas

INSTEAD of making NEW LAWS that people don't follow....maybe we can actually FOLLOW THE GUN CONTROL LAWS WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS.

THEY WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE SHOOTING IF THEY WERE FOLLOWED.

As long as citizens can obtain military type weapons that should only be used by the police and our military NOTHING IS IN PLACE.
Our North American neighbors to the south and north don’t have these types of slaughters like we do.
As of the most recent massacre in Texas, Columbine is no longer one of the 10 worst mass shootings in US history. 3 of the top 5 are all in the last year & a half.

Republicans and fellow wingnuts solution: Do Nothing.

The 2nd amendment was written to secure the people's right to keep and bear MILITARY arms as needed to defend our rights and our freedoms even against our own government.

Thev2nd amendment was NOT written to secure our right to arms for ANYTHING else. The right to keep and bear arms for hunting and such was already a no brainer.

If you want to remove the people's right to keep and bear military arms to defend ourselves even against our own government? Amend the fucking Constitution or fuck off.

Good luck with the amendment thing.

Lol. Not!

 

[SavannahMann]

Air Force investigators have interviewed 100 people since former airman killed 26 in Texas

INSTEAD of making NEW LAWS that people don't follow....maybe we can actually FOLLOW THE GUN CONTROL LAWS WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS.

THEY WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE SHOOTING IF THEY WERE FOLLOWED.

So, you're saying gun control laws DO prevent things like this, when "followed" or enforced.


Am I hearing that right?

You are hearing part of it. Let’s say that you start a baseball league. You decide that only solid wood bats are allowed. The players in your league decide it’s bullshit, and the umpires agree. They allow aluminum bats at a game. You don’t want to look like an ass, so you ignore it. The next game some more players are using the aluminum bats.

The next year, you decide that bats will be provided by the league, and you provide only wooden ones. The umpires again ignore you, and the players keep going with aluminum.

Why did you need the new rule? The previous one indicated the intent.

Let’s look at the laws that were broken by the shooter in Texas.

1) Conspiracy. In planning to commit a crime, you have committed a crime. Sort of like a Catholic who confesses to feeling up a girlfriend. Not only was copping a feel a sin, but planning on doing it was a sin.

2) Possession of firearms by a convicted felon. Not only did the Air Force drop the ball, but the shooter himself committed a felony by falsifying his form 4473. We’re up to two felonies, and nobody’s been shot yet.

3) Walking towards the church with the guns out. That’s “Brandishing”. That’s also a crime. Using the weapons to intimidate or frighten someone is brandishing unless you are doing so to stop an attack.

Nobody has been shot. Nobody is dead, or wounded. Yet, three crimes at least have been committed. Probably more. None of those laws prevented a crime. No law has ever prevented a crime. The laws are revenge orientated. They punish people for the actions that they have taken. You don’t get busted for buying a car that can exceed the speed limit. You get busted for exceeding the speed limit. You don’t get arrested for drinking, unless it’s in violation of your probation or parole or you are under age. You get busted for acting like a fool in public, or for driving while intoxicated. You can drink yourself into a stupor when you are home just fine and legally. You can do it at a friends house. You commit a crime when you do something we do not approve of.

We don’t pass laws to prevent a behavior, we pass laws to punish a behavior. Psudofed is now located behind the counters of pharmacies. This is a critical ingredient for Crystal Meth. We passed laws that you can only buy so much, one pill a day generally speaking, to cut the amount of Meth that is out there.

Meth production is up more than 800%. Seriously, it has increased. It doubled, and doubled again, and then doubled again. All it did was move production from someone’s kitchen to factory like facilities ala Breaking Bad. We haven’t prevented jack shit. So do we admit defeat, and just move the Psudofed back to where it was, and get rid of the nonsensical crap that doesn’t work to make it easier for the 99% of the people who want it for allergies? Nope. We claim we are preventing, and we’re not preventing jack shit.

If we went back to morons cooking in their kitchens, we would actually reduce Crystal Meth more than it is now. But we won’t admit we were wrong. We are just going to keep on with a failing plan.

Let’s for the sake of argument say that Feinsteins bill passes and becomes law. High Capacity magazines are now slowly becoming extinct. What happens? All the existing ones are grandfathered in. Warehouses full of them will be sold for huge profits. If it looks like the law will pass manufacturers will crank them out around the clock trying to beat the date the law goes into effect. Tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands more will go onto the street, legally.

Another mass shooting will happen, but let’s pretend it doesn’t. Let’s forget those for a while and deal with the reality of shootings. If you are shot with a handgun, especially one of the popular high capacity magazine weapons, you have roughly speaking an 80% chance of survival. I’m not making that up. https://www.amazon.com/Gunshot-Woun...s-Investigations/dp/0849381630/&tag=ff0d01-20

Now, if those pistols are no longer available, the advantage, the high capacity magazine, is no longer a selling point. It’s like a big car with a four cylinder engine, it doesn’t make any sense. It’s better to get a revolver with a big powerful cartridge inside.

That means the return of the Magnums to our streets. Magnum gunshot wounds are most often described as catastrophic. Magnums tend to tear clean through the body of a person, increasing the rate of blood loss, one of the causes of death, and increasing the rate at which Shock sets in.

By getting rid of the higher capacity option, you’re increasing the lethality of the choices that people will make. Remember when the Brady Law was the thing, we tried this. What happened was Revolvers made a big comeback. Big magnums were the way to go since you had so few shots anyway, you might as well make the most of them.

I know, I bought my first .357 Magnum then. I fell in love with the cartridge, and the weapons that fire them. It is still my preferred cartridge. 9mm is for plinking IMO. I like it, but if my life was on the line, I’d choose a magnum.

This is a normal test of what happens to ballistic gel when you shoot a .357 Magnum.

This by the way is a much worse wound to have than a 9MM. Especially when you consider that the FBI found that cops who are trained, and maintain currency, average a 30% hit rate.

Lower capacity magazines mean that higher capability cartridges will be chosen, the old .45 ACP’s will be back again. God Forbid. That means more deaths, not fewer.

If you knew about guns, you wouldn’t support this nonsense of banning this or that. For you, they are dangerous. No such thing. There are no dangerous weapons, other than those which are poorly maintained or manufactured poorly. There are only dangerous people.

 

[SavannahMann]

Air Force investigators have interviewed 100 people since former airman killed 26 in Texas

INSTEAD of making NEW LAWS that people don't follow....maybe we can actually FOLLOW THE GUN CONTROL LAWS WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS.

THEY WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE SHOOTING IF THEY WERE FOLLOWED.

No chance. He would have just bought the guns in the parking lot at a gun show. The guns are the problem, not the laws.

Try that sometime. Please do.

 

[waltky]

Sens. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and Martin Heinrich, D-N.M. sponsor bill to close gun loophole...

The loophole that let the church shooter buy a gun — and the bill that aims to close it
November 8, 2017 - Just two days after the horrific mass murder in a Texas church Sunday, Sens. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., introduced legislation to “close the background check loophole exploited by the Sutherland Springs, Texas, shooter.”

Their bill, the bipartisan Domestic Violence Loophole Closure Act, is intended to “ensure that any individual convicted of domestic violence — whether it is in criminal or military court – cannot legally purchase a firearm,” the two senators said. It immediately received praise from the pro-gun-control group Moms Demand Action and Everytown for Gun Safety, which pointed to its own analysis of FBI data and media reports from every mass shooting between January 2009 and December 2016, finding that “54 percent of mass shootings are related to domestic violence or family abuse.” The link between domestic abuse and gun violence has been well documented, and long before Devin P. Kelley opened fire on a small Baptist church in Sutherland Springs, killing at least 26 people and injuring several more, federal restrictions were already in place to ensure that convicted perpetrators of domestic violence do not have access to guns. But in this case, they didn’t work.

A law enforcement officer helps a man change a flag to half-staff near the scene of a shooting at the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs to honor victims, Nov. 6, 2017, in Sutherland Springs, Texas.​

The federal Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, better known as the Lautenberg Amendment, grew out of efforts to strengthen the Gun Control Act of 1968 by expanding the government’s tools to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which became law in 1993, generally banned convicted felons from owning firearms. In 1994, Congress passed an amendment to the Gun Control Act prohibiting anyone subject to a restraining order from obtaining a firearm. But once the order was lifted or expired, the ban on gun ownership was lifted as well. That loophole prompted Lautenberg in 1996 to propose a broader amendment, which sought to ban anyone who’d ever been convicted of a domestic violence offense, even a misdemeanor, from buying or owning a gun.

A memorial is seen at the site of the shooting at the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs, Texas​

The act was opposed by the National Rifle Association, which argued, according to an article in the Associated Press at the time, that “the proposal denies the constitutional rights of those convicted of misdemeanors. The organization said legislators should make domestic abuse a felony if they really want to stop violence.” But Lautenberg and his allies objected that in most states, domestic violence cases are either charged as a misdemeanor or reduced to one in a plea agreement. Years later, Lautenberg, who died in 2013, would tout the law as “plain and simple: If you are convicted of assaulting your wife or beating your child, we are not going to allow you to arm yourself with a gun.” Lautenberg’s amendment passed with near-unanimous support and was signed by President Bill Clinton in 1997. It wasn’t until after its passage, though, that it began to really draw scrutiny — particularly from the military and law enforcement communities.

[/cdenter]

Prior to Lautenberg, federal gun laws exempted police officers and military personnel — even those with felony convictions — under the “public interest exemption.” Lautenberg, however, included no such exemption, creating what Alison J. Nathan, now a U.S. District Court judge for the Southern District of New York, described as “a felon-misdemeanant anomaly.” Nathan wrote in the Cornell Law Review in March 2000 that “police and military personnel with felony convictions of any kind are permitted, via the public interest exception, to possess weapons, while under the Lautenberg Amendment those with domestic violence misdemeanor convictions are not.” Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., with the backing of the National Association of Police Organizations and the Fraternal Order of Police, proposed a bill to add a public interest exemption to the Lautenberg Amendment. The bill failed, but in succeeding years, law enforcement organizations and individual officers mounted a series of legal challenges to Lautenberg.

MORE​

​