Shooter bought gun legally, not mentally ill….gun control laws actually worked….

[theHawk]

I am now for gun control. Every registered Democrat shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"It is illegal for a felon to possess a firearm, period." Ll

Lemme guess.
You from Texas?

Correction:
It is illegal for a felon to possess a firearm comma, or to vote, in SOME jurisdictions, but not all.

And not every gun criminal is a convicted felon. So why are you harping on this Texas straw-man?

Still now sure how any of this translates to registration being necessary for the state to take guns away from people who are not legally able to own them, when the law that makes it illegal to own them, in and of itself, provides that power.

 

[sear]

"Still now [not?] sure how any of this translates to registration being necessary for the state to take guns away from people who are not legally able to own them" MS

The illegality isn't DESPITE the violated registration laws.
The illegality is BECAUSE of the violated registration laws.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Still now [not?] sure how any of this translates to registration being necessary for the state to take guns away from people who are not legally able to own them" MS

The illegality isn't DESPITE the violated registration laws.
The illegality is BECAUSE of the violated registration laws.

Incorrect.
In OH, for instance, there are no gun registration laws; Ohio LEOs take guns away from people who cannot legally own them on a routine basis - because the fact that it is illegal for someone to have a gun gives the police the power to take those guns away.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, our laws work. If he hadn't killed himself we would have locked him up for a long time. Our murder laws are essentially our gun laws, murder someone with a gun you go to jail…..problem solved.

what you anti gun extremists want….a Bureau of Pre Crime…where you can stop a violent gun crime before it happens…..and that idea only exists in the movies, but you will push more stupid gun laws in the hope that they will work like pre-crime….

No, guy, the problem is, if someone had done a background check, they'd have found that he was violent towards co-workers and had been escorted out of the building.

The reality is we should treat gun ownership as a privilege, not a "right" because 200 years ago, some slave rapists couldnt' write a militia amendment clearly.

The first question that should be asked, "Why do you want/need a gun?"

The second question should be asked of coworkers, employers and neighbors "Is this a guy you want to have a gun?"

Frankly, this is exactly how Germany does it, they have one gun for every five citizens, and guess what- they only have 250 gun homicides a year.

We have an NRA that makes it impossible to block gun sales and we have 11,000 a year.

 

[JoeB131]

Two whites killed by a black man, whens the rioting and looting gonna start? White Lives Matter!

People just can't get upset about workplace violence...

 

[sear]

"Incorrect.
In OH, for instance, there are no gun registration laws; Ohio LEOs take guns away from people who cannot legally own them on a routine basis - because the fact that it is illegal for someone to have a gun gives the police the power to take those guns away." MS #24

You're not debating. You're squabbling.
My original assertion was ( & remains) :

"But weapons control laws empower police to confiscate illegal guns from thugs." s #8

NOTHING you or anyone else has posted refutes that.

But alright.
Have it your way. It's not illegal to violate gun registration laws.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Incorrect.
In OH, for instance, there are no gun registration laws; Ohio LEOs take guns away from people who cannot legally own them on a routine basis - because the fact that it is illegal for someone to have a gun gives the police the power to take those guns away." MS #24

You're not debating. You're squabbling.
My original assertion was ( & remains) :

"But weapons control laws empower police to confiscate illegal guns from thugs." s #8

NOTHING you or anyone else has posted refutes that.

My response to that was:
"The laws against the purchase and possession of a firearm by felons, etc, is all you need for this; to this end, licensing, registration, background checks are unnecessary"
This is absolutely true; nothing YOU have said in any was refutes it,.

 

[sear]

"The laws against the purchase and possession of a firearm by felons, etc, is all you need for this; to this end, licensing, registration, background checks are unnecessary"
This is absolutely true; nothing YOU have said in any was refutes it,." MS

Piffle.
Please review post #12.
"If a legally purchased firearm is lost or stolen, and a criminal takes possession of it for illegal, potentially murderous use, the absence of any & all " licensing, registration, background checks " would put that illegal firearm within the secure possession of the criminals, and beyond the reach of law enforcement." s

Your wording:

"The laws against the purchase and possession of a firearm by felons, etc, is all you need for this"

"Purchase AND possession" is your wording.

If your wording had been "Purchase OR possession", then laws against possessing illegal firearms include firearms registration laws.

Please don't squabble.
And if you must take the losing side of an argument, it's best to bow out once called on it.

Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.- inspired by Proverbs 17:28

 

[M14 Shooter]

"The laws against the purchase and possession of a firearm by felons, etc, is all you need for this; to this end, licensing, registration, background checks are unnecessary"
This is absolutely true; nothing YOU have said in any was refutes it,." MS

Piffle.
Please review post #12.
"If a legally purchased firearm is lost or stolen, and a criminal takes possession of it for illegal, potentially murderous use, the absence of any & all " licensing, registration, background checks " would put that illegal firearm within the secure possession of the criminals, and beyond the reach of law enforcement." s

This is untrue.
When law enforcement finds that person, who is in illegal possession of a gun, they have the power to take that gun as a function of the law that makes illegal for said person to own said firearm.
Thus, the gun is not "beyond the reach of law enforcement".

Registration of firearms in in no way necessary for the police to have the ability to confiscate firearms from criminals who are unable to legally own a firearm.

And if you must take the losing side of an argument, it's best to bow out once called on it.

That being the case, I'll accept your concession.