Question:
Texas church shooter DENIED the right to carry a gun but he got one anyway, what would a gun ban have done in this situation?
DUKE
2017-11-06 13:22:05 UTC
Libtards are so stupid. Smelling their farts and sipping wine while the real American have to deal with real life things
Seven answers:
?
2017-11-08 22:19:01 UTC
He needs to shoot slower is all the left can say! Kill less and take longer time so the cops can stop him.



If you are waiting for the cops for help, you have no control and no where to go. Why didn't anyone sitting there that actually had a permit shoot him? Oh.. it was a church... just a school...



Have a gun and you are the KING in this place...
?
2017-11-06 17:35:28 UTC
He was denied a permit. From what I read, his court martial history should have kept him from buying the automatic weapon, but the background check wasn't thorough enough. Also, automatics should be banned. He wouldn't have been able to kill nearly as many people with any other kind of gun.
Skoda John
2017-11-06 14:35:15 UTC
If guns were hard to get it would make getting one much much harder.

There is no reason for a private individual to have a military style assault rifle.

Guns are not banned in the UK but getting one illegally is very hard.
Marduk
2017-11-06 13:36:20 UTC
Gun shows and if the background check can't be done in 3 days, he gets the gun. That is a couple of ways. Then there are all the ones stolen from gun worshippers that are sold on the black market.
?
2017-11-06 13:26:00 UTC
Everyone has to deal with real life things you dope. Where is your EVIDENCE that he was denied a gun? And with so many weapons in America, ANYONE could get their hands on a gun, including children. Many children HAVE picked up guns in their own homes and shot their parents or siblings by accident. This is the crazy reality of things. Loaded guns within easy reach of children......such parents should NEVER have been allowed to have children!
anonymous
2017-11-06 13:25:00 UTC
Actually, in Texas we heard that he was charged for domestic abuse and third party sales don’t require back ground checks.



The people of sn Antonio now want gun control laws.
Elwood Blues
2017-11-06 13:24:00 UTC
Better background checks and a true assault rifle ban would have done a great deal. Can you possibly deny that?



*** update ***



In the comments, Adam D writes: "Just like drug laws have eliminated the sale of drugs, right?"



Nope. Kind of more like how border police have reduced illegal immigration and how fire departments have reduced fire damage and how highway patrol departments have reduced dangerous driving, etc etc etc.



Are you really arguing to eliminate all forms of law enforcment just because they are not perfect? I think this marks a new low in conservative "reasoning."



*** update 2 ***



@Adam D: I'm talking about deterrence.



A better background check system and the closing of the gun show loophole would both make it harder for people like Kelley to get guns in the first place. The continuing of old assault weapon ban plus a ban on high cap mags would have made the Las Vegas shooter less deadly.



In the same way, the mere presence of the highway patrol deters dangerous driving: you don't know if there's a smokey around the next turn so you take a little care. In the same way, neighborhood police patrols deter theft because thieves don't want to get caught in the act.



Just like in many other law enforcement areas, a little deterrence goes a long way.

.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...