Reply to Indiana Mall Shooting

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Indiana Mall Shooting"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It’s sad how hard the pro-gun people are working to gloss over the facts that two people died needlessly because of their gun lust. [/quote]
If the shooter didn't have a gun, then this tragedy wouldn't have happened.

I just came back from the UK. Not once did I worry about a shooting, and we went all over the country, to many touristy places.

In the US, I think about a shooting at church, movie theater, mall, school, any business, driving, and now parades, apparently.   The US is not a safe place anymore.

And yes, we are going to move to the UK just as soon as the kids are done with their schooling.  Spouse is from there.[/quote]

And there you can worry about being stabbed or deliberately run over with a vehicle.  Enjoy.[/quote]

Geeeee ........do I want to be up against an assault rifle or a knife?   What a tough choice.[/quote]

Agreed. If I was a battered spouse and my ex was coming at me with a knife, an assault rifle would stop him before he got too close. 
[/quote]
oh honey, your abusive spouse would have a gun, not a knife.  In red states, abusers can buy guns.  Enjoy![/quote]

Seriously? Is that true?

Wow.

How come that’s not a federal law? That seems like a no-brainer. [/quote]

Of course it’s NOT true. It’s just another lie posted here by the anti-gun zealots. Because they assume you’re gullible and won’t know any better.

Domestic abusers and people with protective orders against them, or anyone with a conviction (even misdemeanor) for any type of domestic violence, have been federally prohibited from buying, owning or possessing any kind of firearm since 1994. 22 years ago. It’s called the Lautenberg Amendment (it was attached the crime bill in 1993). It’s been federal law on the books for a generation now.

Why do they lie about stuff like this?

[/quote]
DP:  YOU're the liar.  There are plenty of exceptions to the federal prohibition - most notably the "boyfriend loophole."  Abusers with misdemeanor DV convictions who are not spouses, cohabitants, or parents-in-common are not prevented federally from firearm use/possession.  Also, only people with ACTIVE protective orders are prevented from use/possession - people with criminal convictions for VIOLATING protective orders can buy guns all day long.[/quote]

The background checks for red flags around domestic disturbance issues and history of violent behavior issues are nowhere near deep or comprehensive enough.  The Uvalde and Highland Park shooting proved that when they allowed those shooters to buy guns.

The background checks for red flags around mental health issues are nowhere near deep or comprehensive enough.  The Virginia Tech shooting proved that.

And, none of these background checks even begin to cover legal private sales and private transfers in many jurisdictions.

Anyone who says otherwise, tries to claim that the current system and current laws are fine is flat-out lying.  They are not fine.  They need to be bolstered, and need to be made mandatory for every gun transfer of any kind.   And no, I'm not an "anti-gun nut" - I have owned guns and hunted since I was a teen, and come from a long line in a military family where we've all served our country.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics