All-purpose gun legislation thread


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.


I spend about five minutes on the weekly mass shooting coverage. We already know what everyone will say, based on the attacker’s religion. We already what everyone will actually do, which is nothing.

‘Thoughts and prayers, what a tragedy, too soon to politicize, ban the muslims, ban the guns.’ Cable news becomes the same mishmash of uninformed speculation and sobbing interviews. It’s so formulaic. I expect a new cable channel with the same format as the weather channel, except with 24-hour coverage of mass killings instead of thunderstorms and tornado warnings.


I see the difference. But I also read:

“If the bad conduct discharge was given at a court-martial with more than one year of imprisonment, it may be considered as a felony. In such cases, an individual will not be permitted to own a gun.”

so maybe it comes down to whether his sentence was 365 days or 366 days?


Shooters mother-in-law attended the church.


Clearly, the problem is marriage. We must enact legislation now to ban this hideous ritual that drives people to murder.


So a white guy shoots up a church that extended family attends, and this guy seems to have, shall we say domestic problems with his family in the past, and we’re calling that mental illness… why exactly? I mean if it turns out to be true, that he targeted his extended family isn’t he just a murderer?


I think any time someone takes “I don’t like my mother-in-law” and reaches the conclusion “I’m gonna shoot up her church”, it’s reasonable to say the mental arithmetic there is not the work of a healthy personality. Personally, I think any time someone decides the right way out of any situation short of “this person will kill me right now if I don’t stop them” is to kill someone, that’s mentally unbalanced.


Yeah, it’s generalization to the point of uselessness. I mean, sure: someone would have to be mentally ill to think mass murder is an appropriate action to take. But literally every person on the planet is likely to have suffered from a mental illness or disorder at one time or another throughout their lives.


Except we don’t do it when someone is a shade other than white. It’s almost never the message this person is mentally ill and has a gun. it’s is he a terrorist. Is he a thug. And if we think killing someone means someone is unbalanced thus mentally ill that should be the narrative for every killer… and it’s not.



Republicans just announced major healthcare legislation with significant funding for mental health services to address this crisis.

Either that or they’re taking every opportunity to defund coverage for mental healthcare. I can’t remember which.


Periodic reminder.


Yes, it is a religion. It is a death cult.



It’s now being reported that the military did not report his domestic battery convictions to the FBI database, so if the gun shop did a check on him, he would have shown up as cleared to buy. I am sensing an opportunity for improvement.



Yup. I just read that too. The Air Force us going to take some heat on that one.