Texas loosens firearm laws hours after the state's latest mass shooting left 7 dead
Weapons on school grounds, Guns in foster homes, Weapons in apartments, Firearms in places of worship,
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A man prays outside of the Medical Center Hospital Emergency room in Odessa, Texas, Saturday, Aug. 31, 2019, following a shooting at random in the area of Odessa and Midland. Several people were dead after a gunman who hijacked a postal service vehicle in West Texas shot more than 20 people, authorities said Saturday. The gunman was killed and a few law enforcement officers were among the injured. (Mark Rogers/Odessa American via AP)
A series of new firearm laws go into effect in Texas on Sunday, just hours after a shooting left seven people dead in the western part of the state.
The laws will further loosen gun restrictions in a state that's had four of the 10 deadliest mass shootings in modern US history, including the El Paso shooting last month, when a gunman stormed a Walmart and killed 22 people.
The new measures were all passed during the 2019 legislative session, which ended in June.
Here are the sweeping firearm laws going into effect:
Important Background Article: Five Dead, 21 Injured In Texas
Tags
Who is online
89 visitors
House Bill 1143 says a school district cannot prohibit licensed gun owners, including school employees, from storing a firearm or ammunition in a locked vehicle on a school parking lot -- provided they are not in plain view.
Aside from the most effective deterrent to mass gun violence (everyone sending thoughts and prayers) there are other measures that can help as well. One is to have more guns on school property-- not as sucessful as everyone send thoughts and prayers perhaps, but it still could be useful never-the-less.
The fact is-- we need more weapons in our schools!!!!
There's nothing in that law that allows someone to extract the weapon and take it into the school. It simply allows a properly stored and locked weapon - in the possession of a properly licensed individual - to remain where it already is, i.e. safely locked away in the car.
Firearms in places of worship
Why not just pray? I mean, in a house of worship you would think God would protect the flock. Why not just use prayer to protect our Southern border, it's what we use to protect innocent Americans when they go;
Shopping
To a concert
To school
To a movie theater
To church
To work
To a BBQ
Pretty much anywhere.
......
I do love the narrative though. This is priceless.
390 million guns in the hands of citizens in a country that has roughly 335 million people. If guns kept us safe, we would have NO mass shootings, (or crime for that matter). Yet we have mass shootings constantly, sometimes twice a day. And Texas passes a bill to make guns even more prolific in a society where people already pack AR-15's to go get a hamburger?
What will they pass next? ".50cal machine guns can be mounted on the top of any vehicle as long as the overall height doesn't exceed 9 feet and leaving more than 5 shell casings on the ground after a shooting will result in an .18 cent fine per casing, (this fine doubles for MK-19 casings)."
"Steel plating on your house is legal, but slats for returning gun fire must be no wider than 18 inches and 4 inches high. The steel plating must be painted to match the original color of the house.."
Except NRA events Pence attends. Then they are banned. For Pence's safety. Makes one wonder why Pence is safer without everybody carrying but we are supposed to believe the opposite is true for the rest of us. Not to mention the states with the most guns are the least safe, Texas and Florida are prime examples.
The Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms. But people haven't made full use of it. Since mass shootings are on the increase, people should make full use of their Constitutionally protected rights.
Let's face it, if criminals can use guns like AK-47s, law abiding citizens really should prepare adequately to meet the ever-increasing danger-- perhaps one of these in your garage could help meet the increased threat?
75 MM PACK HOWITZER
I swear, you hit the nail on the head...
And at the bottom of the page?
Find at Amazon: Military Issue equipment, clothing, boots, MREs, MOLLE gear and much more.
Well, they weigh in at 1,400 pounds... Yea, could mount it in the back of a truck. The recoil would probably flatten the tires though.
True, donny is the same way. At NRA conventions and his rallies, all gun free zones.
Exactly!
BTW, IIRC, guns were banned from the last Republican National Convention... a horrible restriction on the Second Amendment Rights of law abiding Republican representatives to the convention IMHO!
OMG!
(Just glad I don't live in Texas....)
Just another good example why I left the Socialist Republican Party in 1970
Did anyone lodge a lawsuit over that? Americans are good at lodging lawsuits - any triviality would be a reason. It's a very lucrative country to be a lawyer.
Hey, I am with you Larry, more guns need to be at trump rallies...I mean, more guns means less crime, right? And that's what the gun lobby keeps telling us? Also, 2nd amendment rights shall not be infringed? Isn't limiting the people's right to bear arms at a trump rally infringing on the people's rights?
Xd....and good to see ya, hope your Labor Day is going well, (I opted for a bottle of Patron and a few friends myself). Anyway... the point is that a 'gun free zone', is bad, it encourages shooters to kill...why then would trump or pence, not want a room full of guns to keep it all safe? The point is that it's hypocritical. That's the point.
Probably help out with MPG if fired on a regular basis.
Just another good example why I left the Socialist Republican Party in 1970
How very clever of you to recognize that!
Aw c'mon-- let's not pussyfoot around!
The fact of the mattter is-- the Republican Party in 1070 was actually died-in-the-wool COMMUNIST-- not merely SOCIALIST!
The only thing the new law does is permit a licensed carrier to hold onto his weapon when entering a church just as he would be able to anywhere else.
Does anyone really think the the Sutherland Springs shooting happened because licensed carriers were bringing weapons into churches? In point of fact, that particular shooter had been denied a license to carry in Texas. He was already violating the law before he even fired a shot. Furthermore, he shouldn't have even been able to purchase a weapon because he had been court-martialed for domestic violence, but that information had not been entered into the database. That failing was the responsibility of the Air Force.
Allowing properly licensed persons to carry firearms in the church doesn't make that scenario likely to be repeated. Rather, if it were to happen again, it increases the chances that a law-abiding armed citizen could take steps to interfere with - and maybe even stop - the shooter, limiting the damage he does.
People seem to think guns just spontaneously erupt and murder people all on their own no matter who is in possession of them.
Just when you thought Texas couldn't get any more stupid.
Mass shootings increase? Well shit, we need more guns!!!!!! Yea, that seems to be working out wonderfully. [eye roll]
Possession of AK-47s is legal-- perhaps what Texas will do next is make them mandatory (only for those over the age of 18, of course).
That way law-abiding citizens will not only have their sacred 2nd AMENDMENT RIGHTS protected-- but going beyond that if all adults over 18 were armed they could defend themselves from the mass shootings that so far have been becoming more and more popular in the state!
Something they almost seem proud of.
The NRA is happy about recent events:
NRA celebrates 'highly successful' year in Texas as new gun bills signed into law
AUSTIN — It will soon be easier to carry guns in Texas churches, schools, apartment buildings and disaster zones.
Sunday was the deadline for Gov. Greg Abbott to approve or veto bills passed during the 2019 meeting of the Texas Legislature, which wrapped up late last month. An effort to do away with the state's gun licensing rules failed to reach his desk, but Abbott signed several bills that will further loosen Texas' permissive gun laws.
Pro-gun groups like the National Rifle Association said the session was very successful.
Mandatory AR-15 ownership? works for me
"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people ... To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason (who opposed ratification of the Constitution without the Bill of Rights)
"[T]he advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- James Madison, Federalist No. 46
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers." -- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
District of Columbia v Heller, also re-affirming US v Miller, and Printz v US
United States v Miller concluded that citizens had a 2 nd amendment right to "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense.
We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible." -- Hubert H. Humphrey Democratic Senator, 22 October 1959
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily lives, and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." -- John Fitzgerald Kennedy
George was talking about muskets. Not AR-15's or AK-47's. Using 232 year old laws to manage modern weapons isn't just irresponsible, it's flat out stupid.
Well, its already happening.
especially in states like Texas ....
(Unfortunately sometimes those pesky Law Enforcement Officers intervene too soon...and limit the butchery)
I support Texas and their new laws. They should be in effect nationwide. It’s no wonder I always side with Texas when they and my home state of Californication come in conflict over virtually any matter.
Utter nonsense. Citizens the right affirmed repeatedly by SCOTUS to have the same firearms as a foot soldier
and that the Constitution established a prohibition against government infringing on that fundamental right and liberty
part of that natural right I see both a check and defense against government tyranny
United States v. Cruikshank , 92 U.S. 542 1876
The Justices stated "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government"
Alexander Hamilton Federalist 28
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws."
-- Edward Abbey father of environmental movement in"Abbey's Road", 1979
Oh please, if there were 10 mass shootings a day in Texas you would support loosening the gun laws.
Show me in the 2nd amendment where it says, "right to bear GUNS"? Arms could mean a rake or a pitchfork. There is nothing in the US constitution that says citizens have the right to own GUNS.
The bill of rights is a negative charter against government infringing upon our natural rights. The Constitution including the Bill of Rights do not grant any rights
What he was talking about was having the citizenry be armed in such a way as to be able to fight effectively against government troops. There is a purpose behind the 2nd Amendment, and that's it. It's not to hunt pheasant.
I have posted more than once that it seems that the only solution is to issue firearms and ammunition to every American resident (legal and illegal) when they reach the age where they are capable of lifting and holding a pistol.
Weird that you would also oppose same sex marriage then... LOL
I oppose all government involvement in any marriage or divorce
SCOTUS has also ruled on women's rights to privacy and abortions. Do you support those rulings as much as you support the 2nd Amendment rulings?
Link?
You would have to ask the Military. Private ownership is generally not allowed.
Since when? After they killed millions in the 50's suppressing revolutionaries or the thousands they killed in Tiananmen Square protests?
How about mass stabbings good enough?
US v Miller and District of Columbia v Heller- SCOTUS has established the limits to types of weapons
And most importantly to this debate- this conclusion from SCOTUS in DC v Heller
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
Weare to have equal firearms to defend ourselves from government tyranny AND that most US citizens are by LAW members of the unorganized militia
ALL Able bodied men are part of the US militia per US Law with a few exceptions
TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES
Section 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at
least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia
who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Section 312. Militia duty: exemptions
(a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:
(1) The Vice President.
(2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several
States and Territories, Puerto Rico, and the Canal Zone.
(3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.
(4) Customhouse clerks.
(5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.
(6) Workers employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.
(7) Pilots on navigable waters.
(8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.
Seems they only need knives..................
Buzz isn't on.
I thought you posted a serious question and was incapable of figuring it out for yourself. You're welcome.
Sorry, Tessylo, but it's just early morning here now. Both KDMichigan answered your question by giving examples of knife/cleaver attacks but I will try to give a definitive reply to what you asked.
Only the military, the bank money delivery guards and some police units (like a SWAT equivalent, or terrorist-response police) have guns in China. Even bank guards and ordinary police do not carry guns. No civilians are permitted to have guns, although it is possible that some do have them illegally, although I have never in my 13 years here heard of a shooting. Such things as mass cleaver/knife attacks are reported here, and if there were a shooting it surely would have been reported because it would have been a highly unusual circumstance.
I have responded to Tessylo about guns, which is what she asked about.
The reason cleaver/knife attacks are carried out at primary or elementary schools where there are young children is because they are unable to defend themselves, and the attackers are usually elderly mentally deranged men. Of course the only weapon they have may be a cleaver or knife. The only actual terrorist act I am aware of was in Kunming in 2014 when Uighur terrorists used cleavers and knives. These things ARE reported here, so there is no cover-up.
Now let us talk of comparisons with the USA. The mass cleaver/knife attacks are few and far between, and if there are more than one or two a year it would be unusual. China has 4 times the population of the USA, so one might think there should be 4 times the mass murders, right? VERY VERY WRONG. There is NO comparison. After all, if a mass murderer can have a gun, why bother using a knife?
I have answered Tessylo's question about guns. I did say that the military did have guns so bringing up the 50s and Tiananmen Square were interesting historical diversions about military use of weapons against civilians, but I don't think that is what Tessylo wanted to know.
As well, I have replied to Just Jim NC TttH about cleaver/knife attacks.
I've said it before, I will say it again. I support the 2nd amendment, I own many guns, but, there has to be a way to decrease the number of mass shootings in the USA.
It's got nothing to do with the mentally ill since other countries have mentally ill people but nowhere near the mass shootings we have.
The general public has NO use for an assault weapon. They are designed to hunt humans, not rabbits, not deer, not buffalo, not elephants....just humans.
People can easily defend themselves with a handgun, a shotgun and a rifle. The need to pump out as many rounds as possible? No one needs one.
The Daytona shooter killed 9 people and discharged 42 rounds in 30 seconds. Explain to me why anyone needs that kind of firepower? SWAT? Police? Sure. Uncle Cletus? No.
Good guy with a gun? El Paso shooter killed 22 in a Wal-Mart, in TEXAS, (an open carry state where the governor was actually mad that Texas was second in the nation for firearm purchases), and the shooter literally had to drive up to a cop to turn himself in....
These "mass shooters", rely on what we in the military called, "spray and pray"... Shoot indiscriminately and hope you hit a bad guy. If these amateur shooters didn't have that ability given to them by their assault style weapons, the kill count would be MUCH lower.
The belief that more guns means less crime is complete and utter BULLSHIT.
It is pretty much a sure thing that if the left tries to take away the more than 15 million AR-15s in this country, there will be another bloody civil war
and you can also count on many active members of the military joining in that defense of liberty
No, there won't be, the vast majority of Americans do NOT want assault weapons available to the general public.
Also, the last civil war, the right wing got their asses kicked.
And I'm sure the police and other law enforcement officers would like to see more citizens have easier access to AR-15s-- especially after the recent shooting!
Why do you claim the left would do that? Trump was the only modern day POTUS to state that he was for taking away people's without cause.
JOE BIDEN PROMISES TO CONFISCATE ALL MULTI-ROUND MAGAZINES, DISARM CHURCH-GOERS
“Beto O’Rourke called Friday for gun licensing and a mandatory buyback program for assault weapons, expanding on a controversial gun control platform he advanced in his return to the presidential campaign the previous day.
Part of a proposal to address gun violence and white nationalism, O’Rourke said that, if enacted, anyone who failed to forfeit a banned assault weapon would be fined.”
Biden August 7, 2019
Typically, candidates have steered away from outright calling for the removal of firearms as it impeaches upon the Second Amendment, but Biden was very blunt about it when asked should gun owners be concerned about him coming for their guns. “Bingo! You’re right, if you have an assault weapon,” he responded.
“The fact of the matter is [assault weapons] should be illegal. Period,” Biden said. “The Second Amendment doesn’t say you can’t restrict the kinds of weapons people can own. You can’t buy a bazooka. You can’t have a flame-thrower.”
and this from Dem Congressman Salwell
November 2018
Rep. Eric Swalwell, California Democrat, warned gun owners Friday that any fight over firearms would be “a short one,” because the federal government has an extensive cache of nuclear weapons.
After Joe Biggs tweeted that Mr. Swalwell “wants a war” over the Second Amendment, Mr. Swalwell responded, “And it would be a short war my friend”
“2020 Democrats push gun confiscations, buybacks after mass shootings
Biden is talking assault rifles and magazines, Trump is talking any and all guns. Bit of a difference. Trump was also pushing for it, without due process. Further violating the Constitution.
The AR-15 is the most owned firearm in America. It is the preferred defense weapon for women. 99.9999% of AR-15 owners have never and will never use their weapon in a crime
We don’t have a firearms crisis. We have a problem with morality and respect for life.
Facts about AR-15 Ownership
“Devotees say the AR-15 has been wrongly demonized, arguing that the vast majority of owners never use it in a crime, and that despite the rifle’s use in mass shootings, it is responsible for a very small proportion of the country’s gun violence.
Thanks to that ardent following, and shrewd marketing, the AR-15 remains a jewel of the gun industry, the country’s most popular rifle, irreversibly lodged into American culture.”
“Why Young Women Want AR-15s
As young women, we prefer an AR-15 “assault” rifle with a 30-round magazine for self-defense.
AR-15s are the most popular rifle in the U.S.; more than 3 million Americans own one. And its popularity isn’t with criminals — assault rifles account for only 0.6 percent of murders every year. Rather, the semi-automatic AR-15 is the gun of choice for many hunters, target shooters, and home defenders.
Accuracy? Check. Ease in handling? Check. Intimidation factor? Check. An AR-15 might be a woman’s best friend. We are rational women who, as law-abiding citizens, understand the need — and the right — to defend ourselves. We don’t want to be caught underprepared in the kind of desperate situation that happens too frequently to people across America.”
Good luck legislating that Larry.
You hate the government and our laws on any subject you don't like, but then flip around and quote the constitution as soon as it suits your needs. Either you support the fucking thing or you don't.
I didn’t call for moral laws. I said we have a moral problem. Laws cannot fix a moral problem
Correct
Apparently we have more than most. For one thing, we have the third largest population on the planet. So, even if the percentages were in our favor, we'd have more mentally ill people than most other countries just on raw numbers. We are bound to have issues. Unfortunately, the percentages are not in our favor either. Have a look at this report:
Mental Health
In it, you'll see that the United States sits in the top 3 pretty consistently whether you're talking about anxiety, depression, substance abuse, or some other condition. The other top countries vary somewhat, but the US is always near the top.
It's not my intent to disregard access to guns or even a culture that celebrates gun violence in movies and TV. Those are certainly things we should think about. Nevertheless, we do have a significant problem with mental health and substance abuse that surpasses most of the world.
This is important because at some level we should be fair to the good, law-abiding, and mentally stable people - numbering around 100 million - who never commit any kind of crime with their guns. Roughly 30% of adults claim to personally own a gun and 43% say they live in a household with a gun (meaning they have easy access). According to the census, about 75% of our population, or about 245 million are adults .
Do a little 5th grade math and that means that over 105 million adults have easy access to a gun and I assume that something close to 99% of them are not violent people. I make this assumption because according to the FBI, only about 11,000 people each year are murdered with a firearm of any type . 11,000 victims compared with 105 million armed people in the country comes out to about 0.0001.
We could respond to gun violence by making life harder for this whole third of our population, or we could look at what is driving 1% of 1% of our population to commit murder. Mental health is a big part of that.
I hate you.
A few years ago, I had reason to drive to Lubbock. Every time I crossed a state line, the price of gas went down a good 20 or 30 cents. In California, we require special refining techniques and additives for air quality control, which must include extracting semen from endangered condors or something.
First you say
To follow with
Which tells me you know nothing about guns.
I hate to inform you with your vast gun knowledge but you don't pump "Assault Weapons". AR are semi automatic, that means every time you pull the trigger a bullet is fired then another automatically loads then when you pull the trigger again another bullet is fired then automatically loads, No pumping involved.
I'm surprised that with your military background you are not aware of this. I'm sure they had their reasons for not letting you shoot Assault Rifles. Maybe they should have so you could understand selective fire and all.
There is. DEAL WITH THE FUCKTARD that can't handle and deal with the realities of life that is holding the gun. People need to start paying attention to the people around them there is a lot that can be done to stop the shooter BEFORE they obtain a tool to kill with.
Going after the gun isn't going to do a damn thing.
These are all really minor laws that are not going to facilitate a mass shooting or anything like it. They all look to be basic quality of life improvements for licensed carriers or they cover otherwise lawful owners in very private (like just keeping a weapon where you live) or emergency situations. There's no justification for freaking out over these laws.
It's a mad, mad, mad, mad, mad, MAD world these days !
"The gunman also called the FBI's tip line, Gerke said.
FBI Special Agent Christopher Collins said the gunman was "rambling" but not threatening when he called the tip line.
FBI special agent Christopher Combs said the gunman "was on a long spiral down" before the shooting on the day he was fired. He went to work that day "in trouble," Combs said. He said the place where the suspect lived was "a strange residence" and that the condition reflected "what his mental state was going into this."
In Hindsight
, Gosh......I wonder if the FBI shoulda checked on the guy, just for the heck of it !
So far authorities in Texas have refused to release information on how the perp obtained his weapon.
Interesting, eh?
Not really they probably have no idea how he got it. The government doesn’t know about most of my guns or where and when I obtained them.
It was announced a few minutes ago on tv news that he purchased the gun in a private sale.
It was also reported that a neighbor of the shooter called the police on him last month for threating her with a gun...The police never showed up or followed up.
It was announced a few minutes ago on tv news that he purchased the gun in a private sale.
That exactly what I suspected.
When they didn't report how he got it I was immediately suspicious-- that they were hesitating to report it, because it would bring the private sale loophole to light. (And for those in the public that weren't aware of it, it would cause some of them to realize that there are still ways to purchase weapons like that without any background check at all!)
Which might cause some citizens to realize that background checks need to be extended to private sales, sales at gun shows, etc. And the politicians in Texas wouldn't want that-- so they put off mentioning how he got it as long as they could).
The police not responding to the women that was threatened by the shooter is a major screw up on their part. I think that you'll hear a lot more about this in the investigation.
That sure is a lot of speculation. Maybe they ran the gun numbers and were unable to locate the original owner to verify whether it was stolen or not.
But yeah private sales are hard to tackle. I don't think it is to far fetched to say their is more unregistered guns than registered. Not one of my rifles or shotguns are registered.
Obviously the only way to stop assholes with guns is to give more assholes more guns!
Obviously the only way to stop assholes with guns is to give more assholes more guns!
In which scenario would you feel safer?
You walk into a Walmart to do a little shopping . . .
A- As soon as you enter, you see that quite a few fellow shoppers are carrying long guns, many of them protected by visible body armour.
B-As soon as you enter, and even after being there a while, apparently no one there is carrying.
In which scenario would you feel safer?
Why?