All-purpose gun legislation thread

Right-wingers and Trumpsters are blaming Antifa based on information they made up themselves.

Check out the comments on this Newsweek piece (ok maybe not) but christ

First comment I saw:

Theresa Geiser · Sales at Touch of Mink, Inc
Dear doubting liberals…how convenient to deny conservative conclusions without offering an alternative motive. If this attack was not carried out by an ANTIFA member, then it was someone who harbored extreme hate for America’s far right that they were willing to act on with violence. So, basically ANTIFA. If not them then who…? Still waiting. Get off your socialist high horse and own up to your parties’ wrongs like you demand of everyone else you blame for your lack of success in life…

Of course, one could argue that even_more_ lives would have been saved if the shooter had not, um, been there with a rifle. It’s pretty amazing how guns can be simultaneously not at all a factor (in the crime) and a vital factor (in allegedly mitigating the crime).

Fucking disgusting. What a fucking moron. Totally expected but still, what a.piece of shit.

Lead story on Fox News right now celebrates vigilante and 95mph car chase by random gun-toting citizen. Umm, good thing he luckily picked the right person to shoot, eh?

And if 25 people being dead and then the killer is taken down is a success scenario for arming citizens…

Maybe now video game is not that bad huh? Thankfully that guy played some GTA so he drove well in pursuit of the gunman… :roll eyes:

I don’t understand your post. How did he luckily (?) pick the right person to shoot? The article doesn’t say anything about him shooting anyone.

I think its fair to say there could have been more than 25 killed if people there weren’t shooting back at the guy.

I’m all for stricter gun control, and a total ban on assault rifles, but I’m not a fan of these knee-jerk arguments that ignore things that actually happened or make up things that did not happen.

I was pretty upset this weekend. It feels like the NRA sideways benefits from these attacks. The more attacks there are, the more guns there need to be. The more guns society has, the more of these attacks happen. Which means we need even more guns to protect ourselves from our guns. Ad nausium. It’s a strange religion, like the demon of John Wayne has consumed Marion Morrison, where the fictional becomes real because we all believe it. It also makes me want to cut off the whole population from the internet and television. Clearly we can’t handle it.

Setting that aside, i really do want to start pointing fingers. We live in this bubble of isolation from the consequences of our voting ideologies; we vote for people who do terrible things, but it’s never our fault.

I want to run for office and point at all the gun loving voters. No, you didn’t do this, yes, i’m sure you are personally safe and responsible gun owners blah blah, but this is your fault. We could collectively stop this madness, and you don’t want to. Your love of guns leads to these disasters. We could all collectively come together and get rid of the damn things and you don’t want to. So guess what, in some small way you personally are culpable. It really is your fault.

We don’t live in a society where Ground to Air anti-aircraft missiles are widely available. We agree this would be a terrible thing. Your mindless love of these stupid things is the equivalent of insisting AtG missiles are a constitutional right, no matter how many people die or how many planes get shot down or how this ruins the country.

Disagree completely with that assessment. By most accounts, every single person in that church was hit or nearly hit by the shooter. He reloaded multiple times. By the time he jumped into a vehicle, multiple calls with descriptions of the vehicle were out to law enforcement. This guy’s shooting spree was done. What we got was a highly-dangerous high speed chase with a civilian chasing, who happened to be shooting from a moving car at a moving car (which is a big police no-no).

No. Just no.

Fox News literally had that douchebag charlatan Jeffress (Trump’s nutjob “preacher”) saying that churches were going to need to have armed security.

Sorry, “he” being the guy with the gun that was shooting at the killer. One guy drove them, the other guy was shooting at the killer. All in all, a really great situation that we should definitely be encouraging more of, instead of actual solutions.

In this case, knowing who to shoot was pretty easy, since he was the guy dressed in tactical gear firing a rifle at folks in church.

I read several articles about the vigilante guy, and watched the driver’s first-hand account and none of them say anything about him shooting from a moving car, or even shooting at all. Now we can argue about whether it was a good idea for him to chase him down in a car at 95 miles per hour, but that’s an entirely separate issue.

Initial reports said the civilian who intervened shot or shot at the perpetrator. Whether that pans out or not remains to be seen.

Regardless, while I agree that anyone intervening to try and stop a massacre like this is in general doing the right thing, it’s hardly a solution to the problem. And I think it’s entirely relevant to note that at best the intervention prevented something from being slightly more grotesque than it already was.

Apparently, from the CNN story I just saw, the killer should not have had a gun to begin with. Even with laws in place, gun culture inertia, particularly in places where gun culture is firmly entrenched, makes it hard to enforce limitations on gun ownership.

As I read it, there were 2 specific disqualifiers which legally should have stopped him from purchasing the AR (in 2016): a prior domestic violence conviction, and a bad conduct dishonorable discharge (from 2012). But I guess these laws are really just guidelines and don’t get applied literally when selling long guns to a good old boy.

This morning Chris Cuomo on CNN was interviewing the town’s sheriff and was trying to steer the conversation to mental health and gun control. Bless you Chris, but you weren’t going to get a TX sheriff on air saying something pro-gun control.

Edit: @sillhouette, the issue as I understand it is that with a bad conduct discharge there is nothing preventing him from owning a gun. It’s different from a dishonorable discharge.