What if she didn't have a gun?

[Lonestar_logic]

You have a serious argument there that all guns should be banned. I'd just like background checks for all sales. This guy couldn't pass a background check
Wisconsin Mass Shooter Exploited Background Check Loophole That NRA Says Isn't A Problem | Blog | Media Matters for America

On the contrary. I presented a good argument why more law abiding citizens should be armed.

Again the story is bogus in that no loophole was involved.

You libtards really need to learn the definition of words and stop trying to redefine them to fit your agenda.

He bought a gun without a background check and murdered people. Nothing bogus about 3 dead people.

No what is bogus is the claim that he found a loophole in the law.

WHERE THERE IS NO LAW, THERE CANNOT BE A LOOPHOLE!

Damn you are one brain-dead liberal.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Not that I'm aware of. His mom not training and arming him would have. Bet she was nra.

So, stripping civil rights from others isn't really about stopping mass shooting?

It's about keeping guns from criminals and saving lives.

You say that even after being shown that background checks does neither.

 

[Brain357]

So, stripping civil rights from others isn't really about stopping mass shooting?

It's about keeping guns from criminals and saving lives.

You say that even after being shown that background checks does neither.

After posting an example of someone using a private sale to avoid a background check and then killing 3 people. Yes I do. I guess 3 lives mean nothing to you? I guess waiting for a background check isn't worth saving lives to you? Wonder how God will judge that.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It's about keeping guns from criminals and saving lives.

You say that even after being shown that background checks does neither.

After posting an example of someone using a private sale to avoid a background check and then killing 3 people. Yes I do. I guess 3 lives mean nothing to you? I guess waiting for a background check isn't worth saving lives to you? Wonder how God will judge that.

Where's your evidence he would have failed a background check?

Where's your evidence that a background check would have stopped him?

Here's the facts. A guy bought a gun from a private seller and killed three people. The absence of a background check is irrelevant because there is no evidence that background check would have changed anything.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's about keeping guns from criminals and saving lives.

No, it sure isn't.

Crime is dropping as gun ownership is rising. Clearly your opposition to civil rights has another goal.

 

[Brain357]

You say that even after being shown that background checks does neither.

After posting an example of someone using a private sale to avoid a background check and then killing 3 people. Yes I do. I guess 3 lives mean nothing to you? I guess waiting for a background check isn't worth saving lives to you? Wonder how God will judge that.

Where's your evidence he would have failed a background check?

Where's your evidence that a background check would have stopped him?

Here's the facts. A guy bought a gun from a private seller and killed three people. The absence of a background check is irrelevant because there is no evidence that background check would have changed anything.

He had a restraining order and wouldn't pass a background check.

 

[Brain357]

It's about keeping guns from criminals and saving lives.

No, it sure isn't.

Crime is dropping as gun ownership is rising. Clearly your opposition to civil rights has another goal.

We are talking about criminals having guns, are you saying more criminals have guns?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

After posting an example of someone using a private sale to avoid a background check and then killing 3 people. Yes I do. I guess 3 lives mean nothing to you? I guess waiting for a background check isn't worth saving lives to you? Wonder how God will judge that.

Where's your evidence he would have failed a background check?

Where's your evidence that a background check would have stopped him?

Here's the facts. A guy bought a gun from a private seller and killed three people. The absence of a background check is irrelevant because there is no evidence that background check would have changed anything.

He had a restraining order and wouldn't pass a background check.

You're assuming the local authorities reported the required records.

Federal law prohibits firearm possession by individuals subject to a domestic violence protective order or who have been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor. Yet, states have had difficulty identifying and reporting individuals who fall within these categories.

Accordingly, the FBI has encouraging states to provide more complete records to the FBI.

Source:

Oh and I wouldn't call that a "loophole" either. It's more like incompetence.

 

[Brain357]

Where's your evidence he would have failed a background check?

Where's your evidence that a background check would have stopped him?

Here's the facts. A guy bought a gun from a private seller and killed three people. The absence of a background check is irrelevant because there is no evidence that background check would have changed anything.

He had a restraining order and wouldn't pass a background check.

You're assuming the local authorities reported the required records.

Federal law prohibits firearm possession by individuals subject to a domestic violence protective order or who have been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor. Yet, states have had difficulty identifying and reporting individuals who fall within these categories.

Accordingly, the FBI has encouraging states to provide more complete records to the FBI.

Source:

Oh and I wouldn't call that a "loophole" either. It's more like incompetence.

As we should assume unless you have evidence they didn't.

 

[Uncensored2008]

We are talking about criminals having guns, are you saying more criminals have guns?

You seek to end civil rights. Your attack on civil rights will at most have a minor effect on criminals. Mostly you will deny to law abiding people their constitutional rights.

So keeping criminals from guns my be a veneer to cover your agenda of stripping civil rights, but it is not a reason.

 

[Brain357]

We are talking about criminals having guns, are you saying more criminals have guns?

You seek to end civil rights. Your attack on civil rights will at most have a minor effect on criminals. Mostly you will deny to law abiding people their constitutional rights.

So keeping criminals from guns my be a veneer to cover your agenda of stripping civil rights, but it is not a reason.

No actually I don't. Have people really been effected by having background checks for dealer sales? I don't think so.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

He had a restraining order and wouldn't pass a background check.

You're assuming the local authorities reported the required records.

Federal law prohibits firearm possession by individuals subject to a domestic violence protective order or who have been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor. Yet, states have had difficulty identifying and reporting individuals who fall within these categories.

Accordingly, the FBI has encouraging states to provide more complete records to the FBI.

Source:

Oh and I wouldn't call that a "loophole" either. It's more like incompetence.

As we should assume unless you have evidence they didn't.

Knowing that states have difficulty and knowing that the order was fairly recent, I think it's fair to assume it would not have shown up on the NCIC database.

But regardless, he legally purchased a firearm and used it in a criminal act.

 

[Brain357]

You're assuming the local authorities reported the required records.

Federal law prohibits firearm possession by individuals subject to a domestic violence protective order or who have been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor. Yet, states have had difficulty identifying and reporting individuals who fall within these categories.

Accordingly, the FBI has encouraging states to provide more complete records to the FBI.

Source:

Oh and I wouldn't call that a "loophole" either. It's more like incompetence.

As we should assume unless you have evidence they didn't.

Knowing that states have difficulty and knowing that the order was fairly recent, I think it's fair to assume it would not have shown up on the NCIC database.

But regardless, he legally purchased a firearm and used it in a criminal act.

No it's fair to assume they did their job. Unless you have some facts they didn't.

And if we required background checks on private sales he couldn't have bought that gun. So clearly we should require background checks on private sales.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

As we should assume unless you have evidence they didn't.

Knowing that states have difficulty and knowing that the order was fairly recent, I think it's fair to assume it would not have shown up on the NCIC database.

But regardless, he legally purchased a firearm and used it in a criminal act.

No it's fair to assume they did their job. Unless you have some facts they didn't.

And if we required background checks on private sales he couldn't have bought that gun. So clearly we should require background checks on private sales.

If you want to believe that government is that fast and efficient then go ahead. But I'm not naïve enough to believe that no bureaucratic tape was involved.

How long would it take you to access the NCIC database and run a background check?

Go ahead and try it and see. I'll wait.

 

[Brain357]

Knowing that states have difficulty and knowing that the order was fairly recent, I think it's fair to assume it would not have shown up on the NCIC database.

But regardless, he legally purchased a firearm and used it in a criminal act.

No it's fair to assume they did their job. Unless you have some facts they didn't.

And if we required background checks on private sales he couldn't have bought that gun. So clearly we should require background checks on private sales.

If you want to believe that government is that fast and efficient then go ahead. But I'm not naïve enough to believe that no bureaucratic tape was involved.

How long would it take you to access the NCIC database and run a background check?

Go ahead and try it and see. I'll wait.

All your doing is making things up. Provide proof or it's meaningless.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

No it's fair to assume they did their job. Unless you have some facts they didn't.

And if we required background checks on private sales he couldn't have bought that gun. So clearly we should require background checks on private sales.

If you want to believe that government is that fast and efficient then go ahead. But I'm not naïve enough to believe that no bureaucratic tape was involved.

How long would it take you to access the NCIC database and run a background check?

Go ahead and try it and see. I'll wait.

All your doing is making things up. Provide proof or it's meaningless.

Proof of what? That bureaucracy exists?

Tell me how did the NCIC background check you ran turn out?

 

[Brain357]

If you want to believe that government is that fast and efficient then go ahead. But I'm not naïve enough to believe that no bureaucratic tape was involved.

How long would it take you to access the NCIC database and run a background check?

Go ahead and try it and see. I'll wait.

All your doing is making things up. Provide proof or it's meaningless.

Proof of what? That bureaucracy exists?

Tell me how did the NCIC background check you ran turn out?

Proof his background check would not have failed. He had a restraining order and by law would fail. We need to assume that unless you have proof. You clearly have none so your just making things up. That's pretty pathetic debating.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually it could stop mass shooters if it wasn't for the loophole. You need to stop arguing from emotion and start using some facts.
Wisconsin Mass Shooter Exploited Background Check Loophole That NRA Says Isn't A Problem | Blog | Media Matters for America

Loophole? What loophole? Every single gun sold by an FFL has to go through a background check, no loopholes. Perhaps you should learn to stop lying.

As has been discussed on this thread several times private sales don't require any background check. You'd have figured that out if you read the link. The shooter who killed 3 and injured 4 used this loophole when he couldn't have bought from a dealer. Sounds like proof we need background checks on all gun sales. Again I win. Now please stop arguing from emotion. Calling me a liar when the article is clear about the loophole is just childish.

You must have a problem comprehending English, there is no loophole in the law. A loophole is a area of a law that is designed to prevent something that doesn't actually prevent it. An example of this is a law that is intended to make drugs illegal that specifically defines drugs by chemical composition that allows a clever person to reformulate the drug to avoid the law. Since the law was never intended to cover sales between private individuals it is only a loophole in the minds of idiots.

 

[Brain357]

Loophole? What loophole? Every single gun sold by an FFL has to go through a background check, no loopholes. Perhaps you should learn to stop lying.

As has been discussed on this thread several times private sales don't require any background check. You'd have figured that out if you read the link. The shooter who killed 3 and injured 4 used this loophole when he couldn't have bought from a dealer. Sounds like proof we need background checks on all gun sales. Again I win. Now please stop arguing from emotion. Calling me a liar when the article is clear about the loophole is just childish.

You must have a problem comprehending English, there is no loophole in the law. A loophole is a area of a law that is designed to prevent something that doesn't actually prevent it. An example of this is a law that is intended to make drugs illegal that specifically defines drugs by chemical composition that allows a clever person to reformulate the drug to avoid the law. Since the law was never intended to cover sales between private individuals it is only a loophole in the minds of idiots.

Wow you guys are so owned you argue the definition of loophole. That is funny.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

All your doing is making things up. Provide proof or it's meaningless.

Proof of what? That bureaucracy exists?

Tell me how did the NCIC background check you ran turn out?

Proof his background check would not have failed. He had a restraining order and by law would fail. We need to assume that unless you have proof. You clearly have none so your just making things up. That's pretty pathetic debating.

I have no proof that he would have and you have no proof that he wouldn't have. It's a matter of opinion based on the facts as we know them.

We know that it was two days after the order was issued that he bought a gun. We know that states have difficulty in processing the required reports to the FBI so the data can be inputted into the NCIC database and knowing that government wheels do not always run in a timely and in an efficient manner. So I think it's safe to say he had a greater chance than not at passing a background check.

But again, neither of our assumptions are relevant!

The man legally purchased a firearm??

You claim had the law required the private seller to run a background check the murder wouldn't have happened. A huge assumption on your part.

I asked you to access the NCIC database to see how easy it is to access and you have yet to tell me how well it worked for you.

Just act like your selling yourself a firearm and run a background check on yourself. It shouldn't take more than a few minutes.