A guy obtained several firearms and murdered 60 people in Las Vegas. He had a squeaky clean background, so NICS would not have flagged anything. Did background checks and work to stop that shooting?
i’m more concerned about what happened in allowing the texas church shooter to obtain a firearm even though he had a felony record. sure it was only a “mistake” but i️t cost 25+ people their lives. maybe we should start by enforcing the laws we already have at least
You can’t legislate perfection. Murderers will always exist and they will always find a way plain and simple. I might as well have a way to defend myself against then.
Time to break out the handy "Mass shooting checklist":
1. Send thoughts & prayers but don't actually do anything useful. ✔
2. Argue over semantics of the term "assault rifle." ✔
3. Argue over semantics of the term "terrorist" - if Muslim use it, if Christian/white use terms "lone wolf," "mentally ill," "troubled past." ✔
4. Congress does nothing and the NRA increases donations just in case. ✔
5. Wait for next one, rinse, and repeat✔
This user is currently being ignored
Your name says it all, "no lives matter"!
Smart ... why aren’t you calling for a ban on cars and knives? More people die every year from drunk drivers than those murdered with guns, why do you ignore those deaths?
Geez another name that's a lie.
Crazy white guys with guns, they just cant be stopped. Especially if the NRA has anything to do with it. But if it were any one of a different skin color then YES change would happen! But crazy white guys with guns, its just not safe to even go to church anymore. This story will last a week at most and then it will be pushed aside and nothing will happen.
Suck it Trumpters 🖕
You’re right. I guess we should just ban them all.
Suppressed ... let’s ban cars too. Better yet, let’s just ban leftists. That’ll sure a LOT of our ills!
Racism? You’re high.
Unless you’re anti-white since another mass shooter was white.
Figures you live in the past.
Keep grasping at straws.
We should just ban killing people. That would stop it.
Suppressed ... we all understand that thinking is hard work. Go ahead and take a nap, you need your energy, the adults have it from here.
Holy shit. You spew the same old hateful boring shtick and you call someone boring?
Pot meet kettle
Lady ... it’s a hoot that you think the nonsense you spew is somehow coherent.
No, not that shooting, but they do prevent much harm
It is my opinion that accounting for mental health issues and a criminal history as well as ensuring training with guns via government makes for more competent and RESPONSIBLE gun owners... Leading to less crime
App lagged sorry for the spam
Training is a moot talking point, mental health is an unenforceable notion, and a person’s history is not indicative of future motives. A felon can merely just want to protect his family just as much as someone with zero criminal history can want to shoot up a concert.
Nope. Neither did a good guy with a gun. I carry a gun everyday, but don't believe the hype that a good guy with a gun can always stop a bad guy with a gun.
Me neither. And Vegas was a perfect example of that. That said, background checks are the point and they are proving to be as worthless as I’ve been saying for years.
Abu ... yet another ridiculous strawman?
The question isn’t does a good person with a gun stop EVERY killing spree, it is does a good person with a gun stop even one killing spree? And if —as we saw on Sunday — a good person with a gun can stop the killing, then it’s worth it to have good people carrying guns!
Abusara As long as a bad guy thinks a good guy with a gun can stop him, it matters.
Backgrounds checks aren't worthless. They do prevent some people from getting guns.
Someone who has served their time should have their rights restored. They are people to, and the 2A says “the right of the people;” not “the right of some people.”
That's a different argument than claiming that background checks are worthless.
Derek ... I suspect that you don’t really believe what you just said. So, let’s put it to the test. Let’s suppose that a child molester does “their time”, is released and then applies for a job at your children’s day care provider. You learn that they were hired and their primary responsibility is to clean up the kids when they have accidents — this includes diaper changes.
Do you leave your diaper-clad kids in that specific daycare setting? If so, why and if not, why not?
Guy ... you’re right. I believe that guns don’t belong in the hands of bad people. The background check is imperfect, but a step is an acceptable balance between justice and freedom.
Abu ... it’s quite ironic that you’d make your silly statement at the moment we learned that a good guy with a gun was responsible for interrupting the shooting in Texas just yesterday.
While good guys with guns aren’t everywhere yet having them around us provides both a deterrent and an aid when bad guys with guns are around.
The was refused a conceal carry license.
Question is: where did he acquire his illegal guns?
Think, that is nowhere near a similar situation. For one, as a capitalist, I would remove my children from that daycare and wonder why they hired him.
If you want to ask if a guy committed armed robbery, did his time, and then wanted to buy a firearm, I would say it’s his constitutionally protected right. Unlike your stupid analogy, I don’t have a choice in the matter because that right comes from G-d, and not from government.
Derek ... now isn’t that interesting! You don’t like that my analogy exposes your hypocrisy so you claim that it’s somehow different. Certainly the crimes are different, but the fact is you’re asserting that once the “debt to society” is paid that SOME felons should be given more freedoms than other felons who’ve like use paid their debt. Hmmm. Seems you’ve a problem there, Houston!
It’s not hypocritical at all. For example, I think it’s a detestable act to burn the flag at a Veteran’s Day parade, yet I fully support their right to do so. Rights are not contingent on feelings.
Derek ... you don’t get to have it both ways. It was you who said: “Someone who has served their time should have their rights restored.”
It was then you who said that some people shouldn’t have their rights restored after they “served their time”.
Which is it?
Me taking my children elsewhere has nothing to do with restoring their rights. First of all, the daycare has the right to hire him. They also have the right to not hire him. The molester in your scenario does not have the right to be around my child. In fact, YOU don’t have the right to be around my child if I don’t say it’s okay. So which rights aren’t restored to the molester in your BS scenario?
Derek ... my very appropriate analogy reveals your hypocrisy. If you’re a good parent, you wouldn’t treat the child molester as someone who’s paid their debt to society and therefore eligible to have their full rights restored. And if you’re a bad parent, society has already protecting your kids for you with the laws that require the convicted sex offender to register and to remain away from children. For example, they can’t live within specific distances from schools and other places that children frequent, and current laws prevent them from working in a preschool.
So while it appears you’d put your children in harms way to make your ridiculous point, our society has already determined that not all rights can be restored to some convicts even after they’ve “served their time”.
Did you learn the lesson?
😂😂😂 You didn’t answer my question. Which rights aren’t being restored to your child molester if I don’t want my child around him? Nobody has a Constitutionally protected right to be around my child. People do have a Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, which comes from G-d, not government. Your feelings don’t matter, nor do mine. So, again, which rights (either G-d given or government given) are not being restored because I don’t want my child to go to a daycare that, within their rights, hired a child molester?
Derek ... I get that you need to seem not to connect the dots. It’s ok, someday you’ll grow up and if you’re blessed with children, then maybe you’ll see how ridiculous you’re being by trying to make your feeble case.
The fact is child molesters — even those who’ve “served their time” rightly do not get all of their rights restored.
The wise among us have rightly decided that in many cases, once you’ve broken the trust of the society — even if you’ve “served your time”, still carry a debt to society for the rest of your life.
Your future children will be grateful that smarter adults have created these laws.
Answer my question. Which rights are not restored?
Derek ... I’ll use small words to help you. A convicted child molester is prohibited from working in a child daycare facility. They’re also prohibited from living within specific distances of places children frequent, like schools.
You don’t have a right to work at a child care facility. You also don’t have a right to live within X miles of a school. Unless you can find in the Constitution where those rights exist, you should just stop now... you’re embarrassing yourself by trying to be a keyboard warrior...
Derek ... that’s precious! Ok, let me break it down even further.
The constitution affirms our RIGHT to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If a convicted child molester believes that their liberty means that they work in a child care facility, they don’t have that right to liberty restored. If the child molester’s pursuit of happiness is to return to their home which is right next to a school, then that right of the pursuit of happiness is not restored to them once they’ve completed their incarceration.
Derek, I get that you’re new here, but if you think your silly intimidation is going to somehow cause me to back off the truth, you’ve tragically misjudged your ability to intimidate and the target of that intimidation.
Have a swell day!
I’ve been on SoH since 2011.... so I’m not new.
And the Declaration of Independence cites the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not the Constitution. Regardless, you do not have the right to live X miles from a school, nor do you have the right to be employed by any specific industry. If you did, they wouldn’t even have an interview, because they’d be forced to hire you because it’d be your right.
Living X miles from a school is also not a right. You’re confusing what is meant by “pursuit of happiness.” That means that you can pursue your happiness. It doesn’t mean you’re guaranteed happiness. If Bob the Molester wants to live near a school, then he can try to (pursuing), but will be denied by law, and likely by sellers as well... so again, what rights are being denied here?
Derek ... you really need this drawn out in crayon, right? Does a convicted child molester have the right to freedom to assemble in an elementary school? Does a felonious child molester have the right to bear arms?
Yes and yes. You were asking about living in a specific place. Now you’re asking if he has constitutional rights. Yes, he has the freedom to assemble on public property, even if it’s a school. He also has the right to bear arms.
Man, you really like to try and talk tough, huh? It’s seriously hilarious. You’re not very good at trolling.
Derek ... you’re wrong on both counts. Convicted felons lose their right to bear arms — thankfully. And no, convicted child molesters lose their right to freedom of assembly on public school property.
I understand that you’ve been publicly spanked and suggest that you take it like a big boy ... or not, that’s your choice.
Our discussion is about what should be, not what is. I’m well aware of current law. Just because something is doesn’t mean it’s right. There are plenty of examples of government action that is unconstitutional, yet stands and is accepted.
So to clarify my answer, yes and yes, they SHOULD have their right to assemble and bear arms. Your arrogant tone is still laughable.
Derek ... ha ha ... nice deflection! Your arrogance could be your downfall.
What arrogance? You still never answered my question. What rights are stripped from Bob the Molester by me pulling my child from the daycare?
Derek ... the arrogance that blinds you to the truth. I’ve shown multiple rights multiple times. I get that you can’t find a way to salvage your ego, but I’m going to leave you now to wallow in your arrogance.
Some rights of convicted felons are curtailed — rightfully so — even after they’ve served their time. These include the rights to assemble and the right to bear arms.
Have a nice day.
Wait a minute Think, you STILL didn’t answer my question!!!
What. Rights. Are. Stripped. From. Bob. The. Molester. If. I. Pull. My. Child. Out. Of. Daycare?
Derek ... I get that you’re thick. Here’s how it works. Bob the Molester doesn’t get the job at the daycare because the service provider is smarter than you and even if there weren’t s law against it, they wouldn’t hire Bob because either they care about the kids or at least they’re afraid of the negative press that would get out when others learned that Bib was working there and the parents would all remove their kids.
This is a case where Bob’s right to work in child care is permanently restricted because of his actions. If you don’t get it that this point then you’re beyond redemption on this topic.
He doesn’t have a right to work at a daycare. You don’t have the right to work at any place or industry in particular. Neither do I. So, you still haven’t answered my question.
You’re a really bad troll.... you can’t even change usernames when trolling suppressed than when you’re trolling me! 😂😂😂😂
Derek .. . change the subject. Break out your bottle of pejoratives. You see, unlike you, I have nothing to hide!
You and your silly names don’t change the facts.
You mean the fact that no one has a right to work at a particular place?
Derek ... you’re a piece of work! The fact is that if Bob weren’t a convict he could sue the company for not hiring him because of his PhD in childcare!
Uhhh... sure he could sue, but he wouldn’t have much of a case. A private employer has the right to hire or not hire whomever they wish....