Mass shooting: At Least 11 Shot At Gilroy Garlic Festival

[OldLady]

I said "lawfully." Sounds like the people you used as an examples did not follow the law, did they?
And NO state will completely outlaw guns. If it is done properly, gun laws will be on a national, not state, level so that people can't "state shop" for the set of rules that allows them to buy a gun outlawed for good reason by their state.

what would you propose to put at a national level vs state?

you'd be hard pressed to tell someone from CA they now have the same gun laws as Texas or Montana or something. i don't see it as a possibility for states to give up the control of guns or things of that nature. in the end, that also just puts more power to the national gov and they have far too much of it as it is today.

All laws regarding sale and background checks and registration of guns should apply to every purchase in the country. The database that is checked needs much improvement before it will be accurate and comprehensive. That also needs to be a nation-wide effort because not all states are contributing, and not all Courts are, either.
Obviously, what guns are allowed and which are not MUST be nationwide.

Even the illegal purchases?

LAw abiding people do not have to register guns so the police can take illegally possessed guns from criminals

and a criminal isn't going to register their gun. hence that argument is a feel good do nothing argument to me.

improving the background checks i would be for.

And if the criminal is caught with an unregistered gun, they can't be prosecuted for non registration.......violation of their 5th Amendment protection....

Meanwhile, John, Jane Citizen......caught with an unregistered gun.....felons....lose their job, future decent employment, lawyers fees, likely their homes....

Tell me how the 5th Amendment stops us from being prosecuted for driving an unregistered vehicle, please.
And it sounds to me as if John and Jane should have followed the law enacted by duly elected legislators.

 

[iceberg]

All laws regarding sale and background checks and registration of guns should apply to every purchase in the country. The database that is checked needs much improvement before it will be accurate and comprehensive. That also needs to be a nation-wide effort because not all states are contributing, and not all Courts are, either.
Obviously, what guns are allowed and which are not MUST be nationwide.

Even the illegal purchases?

LAw abiding people do not have to register guns so the police can take illegally possessed guns from criminals

and a criminal isn't going to register their gun. hence that argument is a feel good do nothing argument to me.

improving the background checks i would be for.

And even those can be gotten around.

so can walls but people still want them enough to "go to war" so to speak.

again the orlando shooter should not have passed his background check. we found that out later about a few of the mass shooters. it won't stop all but it would do a better job at flagging those who go that route. i find this something to be more useful than banning weapons you can't define.

Background checks will never be a predictive tool.

didn't say it would predict a thing. just saying that if we could flag someone who should not have a gun at the time of purchase, it forces them to another method at least.

 

[Blues Man]

what would you propose to put at a national level vs state?

you'd be hard pressed to tell someone from CA they now have the same gun laws as Texas or Montana or something. i don't see it as a possibility for states to give up the control of guns or things of that nature. in the end, that also just puts more power to the national gov and they have far too much of it as it is today.

All laws regarding sale and background checks and registration of guns should apply to every purchase in the country. The database that is checked needs much improvement before it will be accurate and comprehensive. That also needs to be a nation-wide effort because not all states are contributing, and not all Courts are, either.
Obviously, what guns are allowed and which are not MUST be nationwide.

Even the illegal purchases?

LAw abiding people do not have to register guns so the police can take illegally possessed guns from criminals

and a criminal isn't going to register their gun. hence that argument is a feel good do nothing argument to me.

improving the background checks i would be for.

And if the criminal is caught with an unregistered gun, they can't be prosecuted for non registration.......violation of their 5th Amendment protection....

Meanwhile, John, Jane Citizen......caught with an unregistered gun.....felons....lose their job, future decent employment, lawyers fees, likely their homes....

Tell me how the 5th Amendment stops us from being prosecuted for driving an unregistered vehicle, please.
And it sounds to me as if John and Jane should have followed the law enacted by duly elected legislators.

You don't have the right to operate a vehicle on public roads.

It is a privilege granted by the states that can be subject to any requirement the state demands and it can also be revoked at any time for any reason

see the difference?

 

[OldLady]

Swimming pools!

Vegas shooter, 2 AR-15 rifles firing from a concealed, fortified, elevated position into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people....58 murdered.

A muslim terrorist in Nice, France using a rental truck murdered 86 and injured 435.

Trucks are deadler than rifles, even when the rifle is fired into a crowd of 22,000 people...

Trucks can be stopped with cement curbs. Bullets can't.

not any truck worth a shit. i've got an 01 dodge. i previously had an 01 dodge 4x4. i promise you i proved time and again curbs were pointless. NOT to run over people but just in general to get where i wanted to go.

Curb was the wrong word.

I guess they call them "bollards," and don't waste your breath trying to convince me that your truck will run over that.

so are you going to pay for putting those things everywhere?

That wasn't my point.

 

[2aguy]

what would you propose to put at a national level vs state?

you'd be hard pressed to tell someone from CA they now have the same gun laws as Texas or Montana or something. i don't see it as a possibility for states to give up the control of guns or things of that nature. in the end, that also just puts more power to the national gov and they have far too much of it as it is today.

All laws regarding sale and background checks and registration of guns should apply to every purchase in the country. The database that is checked needs much improvement before it will be accurate and comprehensive. That also needs to be a nation-wide effort because not all states are contributing, and not all Courts are, either.
Obviously, what guns are allowed and which are not MUST be nationwide.

Even the illegal purchases?

LAw abiding people do not have to register guns so the police can take illegally possessed guns from criminals

and a criminal isn't going to register their gun. hence that argument is a feel good do nothing argument to me.

improving the background checks i would be for.

And if the criminal is caught with an unregistered gun, they can't be prosecuted for non registration.......violation of their 5th Amendment protection....

Meanwhile, John, Jane Citizen......caught with an unregistered gun.....felons....lose their job, future decent employment, lawyers fees, likely their homes....

Tell me how the 5th Amendment stops us from being prosecuted for driving an unregistered vehicle, please.
And it sounds to me as if John and Jane should have followed the law enacted by duly elected legislators.

I cited the Supreme Court decision.....a criminal cannot be prosecuted for not registering their illegal gun...since doing so is self incrimination...which is a violation of the 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination.....

Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[3][4]

 

[iceberg]

Even the illegal purchases?

LAw abiding people do not have to register guns so the police can take illegally possessed guns from criminals

and a criminal isn't going to register their gun. hence that argument is a feel good do nothing argument to me.

improving the background checks i would be for.

And even those can be gotten around.

so can walls but people still want them enough to "go to war" so to speak.

again the orlando shooter should not have passed his background check. we found that out later about a few of the mass shooters. it won't stop all but it would do a better job at flagging those who go that route. i find this something to be more useful than banning weapons you can't define.

Background checks will never be a predictive tool.

The actual predictive tool is the first, second, third arrest when the criminal is caught over and over again with an illegal gun.......that guy will end up killing someone......and they keep being released by the democrats over and over again...

and another part is enforcing the laws we have vs. using excuses to let people go. less the non violent criminals out or find another way to deal with non-violent crime and let's figure out how to prosecute and punish those who do these actions.

there *are* things we can do but we have to stop being 100% on the defense when ideas are suggested. i get why people are. i agree with a lot of it. but now what? throw hands up and say "lost cause" or find a way through a bad problem?

i'll go with #2 and try.

 

[Blues Man]

Even the illegal purchases?

LAw abiding people do not have to register guns so the police can take illegally possessed guns from criminals

and a criminal isn't going to register their gun. hence that argument is a feel good do nothing argument to me.

improving the background checks i would be for.

And even those can be gotten around.

so can walls but people still want them enough to "go to war" so to speak.

again the orlando shooter should not have passed his background check. we found that out later about a few of the mass shooters. it won't stop all but it would do a better job at flagging those who go that route. i find this something to be more useful than banning weapons you can't define.

Background checks will never be a predictive tool.

didn't say it would predict a thing. just saying that if we could flag someone who should not have a gun at the time of purchase, it forces them to another method at least.

So how much privacy does one have to give up to exercise his second amendment rights? And shouldn't that standard be applied to all rights?

 

[iceberg]

Vegas shooter, 2 AR-15 rifles firing from a concealed, fortified, elevated position into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people....58 murdered.

A muslim terrorist in Nice, France using a rental truck murdered 86 and injured 435.

Trucks are deadler than rifles, even when the rifle is fired into a crowd of 22,000 people...

Trucks can be stopped with cement curbs. Bullets can't.

not any truck worth a shit. i've got an 01 dodge. i previously had an 01 dodge 4x4. i promise you i proved time and again curbs were pointless. NOT to run over people but just in general to get where i wanted to go.

Curb was the wrong word.

I guess they call them "bollards," and don't waste your breath trying to convince me that your truck will run over that.

so are you going to pay for putting those things everywhere?

That wasn't my point.

his point is more how practical this would be to implement. while i agree it would stop a guy with a truck RIGHT THERE - you won't find too many cities putting these up as a general rule to in effect stop idiots in trucks.

 

[2aguy]

and a criminal isn't going to register their gun. hence that argument is a feel good do nothing argument to me.

improving the background checks i would be for.

And even those can be gotten around.

so can walls but people still want them enough to "go to war" so to speak.

again the orlando shooter should not have passed his background check. we found that out later about a few of the mass shooters. it won't stop all but it would do a better job at flagging those who go that route. i find this something to be more useful than banning weapons you can't define.

Background checks will never be a predictive tool.

The actual predictive tool is the first, second, third arrest when the criminal is caught over and over again with an illegal gun.......that guy will end up killing someone......and they keep being released by the democrats over and over again...

and another part is enforcing the laws we have vs. using excuses to let people go. less the non violent criminals out or find another way to deal with non-violent crime and let's figure out how to prosecute and punish those who do these actions.

there *are* things we can do but we have to stop being 100% on the defense when ideas are suggested. i get why people are. i agree with a lot of it. but now what? throw hands up and say "lost cause" or find a way through a bad problem?

i'll go with #2 and try.

Didn't say don't try, that is why I vote against every democrat....their policies are the ones keeping criminals on the streets.

 

[iceberg]

and a criminal isn't going to register their gun. hence that argument is a feel good do nothing argument to me.

improving the background checks i would be for.

And even those can be gotten around.

so can walls but people still want them enough to "go to war" so to speak.

again the orlando shooter should not have passed his background check. we found that out later about a few of the mass shooters. it won't stop all but it would do a better job at flagging those who go that route. i find this something to be more useful than banning weapons you can't define.

Background checks will never be a predictive tool.

didn't say it would predict a thing. just saying that if we could flag someone who should not have a gun at the time of purchase, it forces them to another method at least.

So how much privacy does one have to give up to exercise his second amendment rights? And shouldn't that standard be applied to all rights?

what privacy are you giving up when you buy a gun now?

i don't believe everything that should be on a background check is there.

Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet

And then there are the people who slip through the cracks and obtain guns they should have been barred from possessing — sometimes with deadly consequences. The gunmen in the Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooting, Charleston, South Carolina, church massacre, and Virginia Tech rampage each had a history that banned them from owning firearms. Yet none were stopped, because of omissions and loopholes in the system.

what i am saying is - we have something we *can* do that would potentially stop events that took place otherwise. while yes they could have gotten their guns from other places, this flag would be raised and depending on why they are banned from buying guns, watch them for a bit and see if they're doing anything to flag.

so again - if this info was supposed to be a part of their background, what is wrong with fixing what we have so it works vs letting it sit proven to be broken? i'll need a link from a valid background check to the loss of privacy cause i don't see it from here.

 

[Blues Man]

And even those can be gotten around.

so can walls but people still want them enough to "go to war" so to speak.

again the orlando shooter should not have passed his background check. we found that out later about a few of the mass shooters. it won't stop all but it would do a better job at flagging those who go that route. i find this something to be more useful than banning weapons you can't define.

Background checks will never be a predictive tool.

didn't say it would predict a thing. just saying that if we could flag someone who should not have a gun at the time of purchase, it forces them to another method at least.

So how much privacy does one have to give up to exercise his second amendment rights? And shouldn't that standard be applied to all rights?

what privacy are you giving up when you buy a gun now?

i don't believe everything that should be on a background check is there.

Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet

And then there are the people who slip through the cracks and obtain guns they should have been barred from possessing — sometimes with deadly consequences. The gunmen in the Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooting, Charleston, South Carolina, church massacre, and Virginia Tech rampage each had a history that banned them from owning firearms. Yet none were stopped, because of omissions and loopholes in the system.

what i am saying is - we have something we *can* do that would potentially stop events that took place otherwise. while yes they could have gotten their guns from other places, this flag would be raised and depending on why they are banned from buying guns, watch them for a bit and see if they're doing anything to flag.

so again - if this info was supposed to be a part of their background, what is wrong with fixing what we have so it works vs letting it sit proven to be broken? i'll need a link from a valid background check to the loss of privacy cause i don't see it from here.

None my criminal record is public info

The Orlando shooter passed his background check so you must think his criminal record isn't enough information. WHat other information would you want to be used besides what is public information?

 

[OldLady]

All laws regarding sale and background checks and registration of guns should apply to every purchase in the country. The database that is checked needs much improvement before it will be accurate and comprehensive. That also needs to be a nation-wide effort because not all states are contributing, and not all Courts are, either.
Obviously, what guns are allowed and which are not MUST be nationwide.

Even the illegal purchases?

LAw abiding people do not have to register guns so the police can take illegally possessed guns from criminals

and a criminal isn't going to register their gun. hence that argument is a feel good do nothing argument to me.

improving the background checks i would be for.

And if the criminal is caught with an unregistered gun, they can't be prosecuted for non registration.......violation of their 5th Amendment protection....

Meanwhile, John, Jane Citizen......caught with an unregistered gun.....felons....lose their job, future decent employment, lawyers fees, likely their homes....

Tell me how the 5th Amendment stops us from being prosecuted for driving an unregistered vehicle, please.
And it sounds to me as if John and Jane should have followed the law enacted by duly elected legislators.

You don't have the right to operate a vehicle on public roads.

It is a privilege granted by the states that can be subject to any requirement the state demands and it can also be revoked at any time for any reason

see the difference?

Which brings me back to my initial point. Eliminate the Second Amendment and the same can be said of owning guns.

 

[Blues Man]

Even the illegal purchases?

LAw abiding people do not have to register guns so the police can take illegally possessed guns from criminals

and a criminal isn't going to register their gun. hence that argument is a feel good do nothing argument to me.

improving the background checks i would be for.

And if the criminal is caught with an unregistered gun, they can't be prosecuted for non registration.......violation of their 5th Amendment protection....

Meanwhile, John, Jane Citizen......caught with an unregistered gun.....felons....lose their job, future decent employment, lawyers fees, likely their homes....

Tell me how the 5th Amendment stops us from being prosecuted for driving an unregistered vehicle, please.
And it sounds to me as if John and Jane should have followed the law enacted by duly elected legislators.

You don't have the right to operate a vehicle on public roads.

It is a privilege granted by the states that can be subject to any requirement the state demands and it can also be revoked at any time for any reason

see the difference?

Which brings me back to my initial point. Eliminate the Second Amendment and the same can be said of owning guns.

Yeah you can ride your unicorn to the party after the second is repealed.

If repealing the second was even remotely viable it would have been tried by now

 

[iceberg]

so can walls but people still want them enough to "go to war" so to speak.

again the orlando shooter should not have passed his background check. we found that out later about a few of the mass shooters. it won't stop all but it would do a better job at flagging those who go that route. i find this something to be more useful than banning weapons you can't define.

Background checks will never be a predictive tool.

didn't say it would predict a thing. just saying that if we could flag someone who should not have a gun at the time of purchase, it forces them to another method at least.

So how much privacy does one have to give up to exercise his second amendment rights? And shouldn't that standard be applied to all rights?

what privacy are you giving up when you buy a gun now?

i don't believe everything that should be on a background check is there.

Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet

And then there are the people who slip through the cracks and obtain guns they should have been barred from possessing — sometimes with deadly consequences. The gunmen in the Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooting, Charleston, South Carolina, church massacre, and Virginia Tech rampage each had a history that banned them from owning firearms. Yet none were stopped, because of omissions and loopholes in the system.

what i am saying is - we have something we *can* do that would potentially stop events that took place otherwise. while yes they could have gotten their guns from other places, this flag would be raised and depending on why they are banned from buying guns, watch them for a bit and see if they're doing anything to flag.

so again - if this info was supposed to be a part of their background, what is wrong with fixing what we have so it works vs letting it sit proven to be broken? i'll need a link from a valid background check to the loss of privacy cause i don't see it from here.

None my criminal record is public info

The Orlando shooter passed his background check so you must think his criminal record isn't enough information. WHat other information would you want to be used besides what is public information?

then why did this history on their background checks get missed? i'm not asking for more to be added, i'm asking for what should be there to simply be there.

 

[Blues Man]

Background checks will never be a predictive tool.

didn't say it would predict a thing. just saying that if we could flag someone who should not have a gun at the time of purchase, it forces them to another method at least.

So how much privacy does one have to give up to exercise his second amendment rights? And shouldn't that standard be applied to all rights?

what privacy are you giving up when you buy a gun now?

i don't believe everything that should be on a background check is there.

Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet

And then there are the people who slip through the cracks and obtain guns they should have been barred from possessing — sometimes with deadly consequences. The gunmen in the Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooting, Charleston, South Carolina, church massacre, and Virginia Tech rampage each had a history that banned them from owning firearms. Yet none were stopped, because of omissions and loopholes in the system.

what i am saying is - we have something we *can* do that would potentially stop events that took place otherwise. while yes they could have gotten their guns from other places, this flag would be raised and depending on why they are banned from buying guns, watch them for a bit and see if they're doing anything to flag.

so again - if this info was supposed to be a part of their background, what is wrong with fixing what we have so it works vs letting it sit proven to be broken? i'll need a link from a valid background check to the loss of privacy cause i don't see it from here.

None my criminal record is public info

The Orlando shooter passed his background check so you must think his criminal record isn't enough information. WHat other information would you want to be used besides what is public information?

then why did this history on their background checks get missed? i'm not asking for more to be added, i'm asking for what should be there to simply be there.

What history?

What exactly was not on his background check that you want to be?

 

[iceberg]

Even the illegal purchases?

LAw abiding people do not have to register guns so the police can take illegally possessed guns from criminals

and a criminal isn't going to register their gun. hence that argument is a feel good do nothing argument to me.

improving the background checks i would be for.

And if the criminal is caught with an unregistered gun, they can't be prosecuted for non registration.......violation of their 5th Amendment protection....

Meanwhile, John, Jane Citizen......caught with an unregistered gun.....felons....lose their job, future decent employment, lawyers fees, likely their homes....

Tell me how the 5th Amendment stops us from being prosecuted for driving an unregistered vehicle, please.
And it sounds to me as if John and Jane should have followed the law enacted by duly elected legislators.

You don't have the right to operate a vehicle on public roads.

It is a privilege granted by the states that can be subject to any requirement the state demands and it can also be revoked at any time for any reason

see the difference?

Which brings me back to my initial point. Eliminate the Second Amendment and the same can be said of owning guns.

not slamming you here oldlady, but you just went from - as i read it - working on background check improvement to getting rid of the 2nd amendment.

that is a perfect illustration of my point - people go from reasonable to impossible very quickly. we'll never get anywhere if the most extreme thing you can do is your 2nd move, right after "can we all just get along" is found to be a "no".

 

[iceberg]

didn't say it would predict a thing. just saying that if we could flag someone who should not have a gun at the time of purchase, it forces them to another method at least.

So how much privacy does one have to give up to exercise his second amendment rights? And shouldn't that standard be applied to all rights?

what privacy are you giving up when you buy a gun now?

i don't believe everything that should be on a background check is there.

Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet

And then there are the people who slip through the cracks and obtain guns they should have been barred from possessing — sometimes with deadly consequences. The gunmen in the Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooting, Charleston, South Carolina, church massacre, and Virginia Tech rampage each had a history that banned them from owning firearms. Yet none were stopped, because of omissions and loopholes in the system.

what i am saying is - we have something we *can* do that would potentially stop events that took place otherwise. while yes they could have gotten their guns from other places, this flag would be raised and depending on why they are banned from buying guns, watch them for a bit and see if they're doing anything to flag.

so again - if this info was supposed to be a part of their background, what is wrong with fixing what we have so it works vs letting it sit proven to be broken? i'll need a link from a valid background check to the loss of privacy cause i don't see it from here.

None my criminal record is public info

The Orlando shooter passed his background check so you must think his criminal record isn't enough information. WHat other information would you want to be used besides what is public information?

then why did this history on their background checks get missed? i'm not asking for more to be added, i'm asking for what should be there to simply be there.

What history?

What exactly was not on his background check that you want to be?

the link i provided goes into a lot of that. i'll need to go into the history forbes is referring to that was left out to know for sure. the article says that each had a history that should have been on there but it wasn't for XYZ reason. i agree we'd next need to find out what should have been there and why it wasn't and determine if a corrective action needs to be taken.

if you read the entire article, it also talks about lower gun violence in a time gun sales are soaring - that also contradicts the arguments of many anti-gunners in here.

ok - followed one and found this:

In 2012 Assault, Texas Gunman Broke Skull of Infant Stepson
After his confinement, Mr. Kelley was forced out of the military with a bad conduct discharge. The Air Force said the conviction should have barred Mr. Kelley from owning any guns. Instead, law enforcement officials say, he bought several.
-----

there's more that was on his criminal record - but why was none of this enough to raise a flag that selling this guy a gun was a bad idea? how did his discharge NOT get onto his public record?

 

[OldLady]

They want universal gun registration because that is the last thing they need to ban guns and confiscate them when they get the political power to enact those steps

This is where your arguments go total fruitcake. This is not why guns should be registered. The government has no intention of taking lawfully owned guns from lawful owners. This argument is complete and total fear mongering and 100% totally untrue, unfounded and deeply Dale-ish.

They don't take them.......New York, Washington State, Colorado simply state it is now illegal to own them......you then have to sell them, hand them over, or you will be a felon.....they know who has the guns from the registration...

Then....whenever you have an interaction with the police...."your neighbor called about your loud music....and, by the way, you are in our records as having a rifle that is banned that you didn't turn in....we are placing you under arrest for felony possession of a banned rifle." You are stopped for running a red light..."License and registration please.....Ma'am, step out of the car, we are placing you under arrest because you are in our records as having a gun that is banned, that you haven't turned in..."

That is how they will do it.....

I said "lawfully." Sounds like the people you used as an examples did not follow the law, did they?
And NO state will completely outlaw guns. If it is done properly, gun laws will be on a national, not state, level so that people can't "state shop" for the set of rules that allows them to buy a gun outlawed for good reason by their state.

And you are being silly.

I showed you actual expierence in gun banning and confiscation and they all began with registration....where people like you said, " we aren't going to confiscate your guns...we just want to know who has them...." Years or decades later.....turn in your guns or you will be a felon...

Sorry, seen that, done that......we will fight it here.

So you admit you'll be a criminal if things don't go your way.

Yes.....if you don't hand over your Constitutionally protected gun you will now be a felon.....never having used it for a crime....you will now be a criminal. That is as fascist as it gets.......which is why we don't trust people like you....

It is not "fascist." It is sane.

 

[RealDave]

Oh, here's one.

You're as full of shit as I expected.

Not the mini argument. So why isn't it the most popular semi automatic?

Ban AR 15s and it will be then you'll want to ban the mini as well

Yep

So why not just be honest and say you want to ban all semiautomatic rifles?

All that accept a magazine.

I have a semi-automatic shotgun. Plugged to 3 but could hold 5.

 

[OldLady]

So how much privacy does one have to give up to exercise his second amendment rights? And shouldn't that standard be applied to all rights?

what privacy are you giving up when you buy a gun now?

i don't believe everything that should be on a background check is there.

Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet

And then there are the people who slip through the cracks and obtain guns they should have been barred from possessing — sometimes with deadly consequences. The gunmen in the Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooting, Charleston, South Carolina, church massacre, and Virginia Tech rampage each had a history that banned them from owning firearms. Yet none were stopped, because of omissions and loopholes in the system.

what i am saying is - we have something we *can* do that would potentially stop events that took place otherwise. while yes they could have gotten their guns from other places, this flag would be raised and depending on why they are banned from buying guns, watch them for a bit and see if they're doing anything to flag.

so again - if this info was supposed to be a part of their background, what is wrong with fixing what we have so it works vs letting it sit proven to be broken? i'll need a link from a valid background check to the loss of privacy cause i don't see it from here.

None my criminal record is public info

The Orlando shooter passed his background check so you must think his criminal record isn't enough information. WHat other information would you want to be used besides what is public information?

then why did this history on their background checks get missed? i'm not asking for more to be added, i'm asking for what should be there to simply be there.

What history?

What exactly was not on his background check that you want to be?

the link i provided goes into a lot of that. i'll need to go into the history forbes is referring to that was left out to know for sure. the article says that each had a history that should have been on there but it wasn't for XYZ reason. i agree we'd next need to find out what should have been there and why it wasn't and determine if a corrective action needs to be taken.

if you read the entire article, it also talks about lower gun violence in a time gun sales are soaring - that also contradicts the arguments of many anti-gunners in here.

ok - followed one and found this:

In 2012 Assault, Texas Gunman Broke Skull of Infant Stepson
After his confinement, Mr. Kelley was forced out of the military with a bad conduct discharge. The Air Force said the conviction should have barred Mr. Kelley from owning any guns. Instead, law enforcement officials say, he bought several.
-----

there's more that was on his criminal record - but why was none of this enough to raise a flag that selling this guy a gun was a bad idea? how did his discharge NOT get onto his public record?

There is a lot of work that needs to be done to that database. Hopefully, the military is now reporting domestic cases, after that fiasco, but I'm not sure they are.