Virginia gun control law kept AR-15 out of hands of DC shooter

[NYcarbineer]

Who in this thread believes that this guy should have been barred from legally buying an AR-15 anywhere in the US?

And if so, do you support the laws that would be designed to impose that ban?

NO, I do not.

That's 2 out of 2 that support the mentally deranged having access to any guns they desire.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You could add that Virginia's faulty system allowed a crazy person to purchase firearms and commit the worst atrocity in history on a college campus a couple of years ago. Liberal lawmakers prevented the instant name check from accessing mental health records at that time. The system has apparently been corrected but the victims are still dead.

None of that matters because the gun lobby is going to do everything it can to prevent any accountability ever being imposed on private sales of guns.

The felons and the crazies and anyone else who wants a gun will always be able to get them legally,

if the gun lobby has its way.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

People who know nothing about guns shouldn't write about guns. Given the choice between an AR-15 and a good 12-gauge pump shotgun, the shotgun is a much more lethal weapon for close-up shooting.

Do these morons have no editor? Are their editors ignorant, too?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Now that the facts have been checked and found to be faulty will the OP admit his mistake? Or will he do as liberals typically do and continue with the charade?

Well, I know it is silly, but I tend to give more credibility to the New York Times than I do the "Hot Air" Blog.

As for comparing the damage that the shooter could have done with a ar-15 with a 100 drum cartradge to the damage done with an 8 shot pump shot gun, you can't be serious. The guy had pulled the fire alarm. Every single person in the building was racing for the halls and stairwells. He would not have had to aim at all. Every time he pulled the trigger he would have hit someone.

 

[MikeK]

We don't know how good of a shot he was with a semi-automatic rifle so the argument could be made that he would have missed more with the rifle.

[...]

No doubt about that.

While I don't have the exact numbers I do recall the average ratio of shots fired in the mass shootings with semi-auto weapons is 3 - 4 shots (misses) per 1 hit.

I believe the exception was the Columbine massacre because those kids were taking their time and aiming their shots. And even in that example their magazine capacities didn't matter because they had plenty of time between selected shots to reload if they were using pump shotguns instead of rifles.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Every person on this board who has ever claimed that 'shall not be infringed' means that such a denial of purchase violated the 2nd amendment

did in fact want this person to have gotten that AR15.

It is, btw, a reasonable speculation that the death toll could have easily been double or triple what was had he gone in with that rifle.

Bingo. I don't care if he bought a Howitzer. There are laws against murder and assault. People who don't obey them do so at their own risk.

You, too, are a potential criminal. Wouldn't it be nice if you could be arrested for it? Wouldn't it be nice if you couldn't purchase what you want on the free market because of something you might do?

WTF is wrong with you?

You'd have us all in one prison or another.

 

[The Rabbi]

Who in this thread believes that this guy should have been barred from legally buying an AR-15 anywhere in the US?

And if so, do you support the laws that would be designed to impose that ban?

I don't know about him...... But you should

I'm a veteran with an expert qualification with an M-16, and no felony convictions. Why would I be disqualified?

btw, I'll take your answer as a 'no' and add you to the list of people who support this guy having bought any guns he wanted.

Remind me what would have prevented the sale.

 

[The Rabbi]

Now that the facts have been checked and found to be faulty will the OP admit his mistake? Or will he do as liberals typically do and continue with the charade?

Well, I know it is silly, but I tend to give more credibility to the New York Times than I do the "Hot Air" Blog.

As for comparing the damage that the shooter could have done with a ar-15 with a 100 drum cartradge to the damage done with an 8 shot pump shot gun, you can't be serious. The guy had pulled the fire alarm. Every single person in the building was racing for the halls and stairwells. He would not have had to aim at all. Every time he pulled the trigger he would have hit someone.

You clearly dont know WTF you're talking about.
The AR has a standard 30 rd magazine. While someone makes a 100rd mag for it it makes the gun ungainly, difficult to shoot, and they jam a lot. The Aurora CO shooter had one and it did just that, saving plenty of lives in the process.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I don't know about him...... But you should

I'm a veteran with an expert qualification with an M-16, and no felony convictions. Why would I be disqualified?

btw, I'll take your answer as a 'no' and add you to the list of people who support this guy having bought any guns he wanted.

Remind me what would have prevented the sale.

Nothing because in Seattle they let him fire at a car in a blackout and did nothing, In Texas they let him fire a round through the ceiling and did nothing, In Rhode Island they did nothing when he asked for help.

No background check would have found anything and in fact he went through 2 back ground checks, State and federal.

Further he made no effort to buy an AR-15, he wanted and got a shotgun. There is no evidence he pulled the fire alarm at the Navy yard either. This thread is one lie after another.

 

[MikeK]

Now that the facts have been checked and found to be faulty will the OP admit his mistake? Or will he do as liberals typically do and continue with the charade?

Well, I know it is silly, but I tend to give more credibility to the New York Times than I do the "Hot Air" Blog.

As for comparing the damage that the shooter could have done with a ar-15 with a 100 drum cartradge to the damage done with an 8 shot pump shot gun, you can't be serious. The guy had pulled the fire alarm. Every single person in the building was racing for the halls and stairwells. He would not have had to aim at all. Every time he pulled the trigger he would have hit someone.

Those 100 round drums are notoriously malfunction prone, typically after the twentieth round during rapid fire. Also, don't ignore the fact that a #00 buckshot round puts out nine .32 balls (bullets) with a spread pattern which is easily capable of taking out two targets with one shot at the right distance.

The AR-15 is a very good rifle for distances in excess of 50 yards. But you can't beat a pump shotgun for close range, which is why Marines in Vietnam preferred shotguns to the M-16 on jungle patrols. The reason is very simple. With a rifle, even at close range, unless it is aimed the odds of missing are much greater than with a shotgun. In fact, the three-shot burst function of the M-16 actually imitates the effect of a #00 shotgun round.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm a veteran with an expert qualification with an M-16, and no felony convictions. Why would I be disqualified?

btw, I'll take your answer as a 'no' and add you to the list of people who support this guy having bought any guns he wanted.

Remind me what would have prevented the sale.

Nothing because in Seattle they let him fire at a car in a blackout and did nothing, In Texas they let him fire a round through the ceiling and did nothing, In Rhode Island they did nothing when he asked for help.

No background check would have found anything and in fact he went through 2 back ground checks, State and federal.

Further he made no effort to buy an AR-15, he wanted and got a shotgun. There is no evidence he pulled the fire alarm at the Navy yard either. This thread is one lie after another.

Even if they had arrested, charged, tried and convicted him he would still not be prohibited. I believe those crimes are all misdemeanors, not felonies. I might be wrong on those states but it seems like it. And a misdemeanor will not make someone prohibited (except DV).

 

[Pete7469]

I'm a veteran with an expert qualification with an M-16, and no felony convictions. Why would I be disqualified?

btw, I'll take your answer as a 'no' and add you to the list of people who support this guy having bought any guns he wanted.

Remind me what would have prevented the sale.

Nothing because in Seattle they let him fire at a car in a blackout and did nothing, In Texas they let him fire a round through the ceiling and did nothing, In Rhode Island they did nothing when he asked for help.

No background check would have found anything and in fact he went through 2 back ground checks, State and federal.

Further he made no effort to buy an AR-15, he wanted and got a shotgun. There is no evidence he pulled the fire alarm at the Navy yard either. This thread is one lie after another.

Liberalism is based on lies, just like every other sort of leftist tyranny.

 

[RKMBrown]

Who in this thread believes that this guy should have been barred from legally buying an AR-15 anywhere in the US?

And if so, do you support the laws that would be designed to impose that ban?

What does buying an AR-15 have to do with what he did? He used a shotgun. He killed innocent people who were BANNED FROM HAVING A GUN TO DEFEND THEMSELVES. YOUR BAN IS WHAT GOT THEM KILLED. How can you live with yourself?

I would support a law that hangs people who render innocent people defenseless with their stupid idea that gun bans and gun free zones are the answer to stopping insane killers.

The guy was hearing voices, he was a danger to the public, he should have been in a padded room.

 

[The Rabbi]

Who in this thread believes that this guy should have been barred from legally buying an AR-15 anywhere in the US?

And if so, do you support the laws that would be designed to impose that ban?

What does buying an AR-15 have to do with what he did? He used a shotgun. He killed innocent people who were BANNED FROM HAVING A GUN TO DEFEND THEMSELVES. YOUR BAN IS WHAT GOT THEM KILLED. How can you live with yourself?

I would support a law that hangs people who render innocent people defenseless with their stupid idea that gun bans and gun free zones are the answer to stopping insane killers.

The guy was hearing voices, he was a danger to the public, he should have been in a padded room.

The Left is OK with dead victims. They have trouble with live heroes.

 

[Edgetho]

Who in this thread believes that this guy should have been barred from legally buying an AR-15 anywhere in the US?

And if so, do you support the laws that would be designed to impose that ban?

NO, I do not.

That's 2 out of 2 that support the mentally deranged having access to any guns they desire.

NYfraudineer 2, Strawmen 0

 

[Vandalshandle]

Everyone knows that the guy was crazy. Everyone agrees that he should have had a record of being too unstable to buy a gun. The issue is that the Virginia law requiring that since he lived in another state, he would have to purchase the gun in that state in accordance with that state's waiting period and background check, which kept him from getting a more lethal weapon in Virginia.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Everyone knows that the guy was crazy. Everyone agrees that he should have had a record of being too unstable to buy a gun. The issue is that the Virginia law requiring that since he lived in another state, he would have to purchase the gun in that state in accordance with that state's waiting period and background check, which kept him from getting a more lethal weapon in Virginia.

He never tried to buy an AR. So stop claiming he did.

 

[The Rabbi]

Everyone knows that the guy was crazy. Everyone agrees that he should have had a record of being too unstable to buy a gun. The issue is that the Virginia law requiring that since he lived in another state, he would have to purchase the gun in that state in accordance with that state's waiting period and background check, which kept him from getting a more lethal weapon in Virginia.

He never tried to buy an AR. So stop claiming he did.

And an AR15 is not more lethal than a Rem 870.

And hardly any states have a waiting period on long guns.

When anti gunners start blabbering about guns they look soooo stupid.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Good, so the EXISTING laws were enforced in this particular instance.

 

[NYcarbineer]

NO, I do not.

That's 2 out of 2 that support the mentally deranged having access to any guns they desire.

NYfraudineer 2, Strawmen 0

Since you don't support background checks, you must support crazy people being able to buy guns,

since without background checks, the seller can't know who's certified or not.

Don't try to weasel out of your beliefs. Your weaseling has become a colossal bore around here.