And what are you doing people who go crazy while they own a large quantity of guns ? Paddock had the right to buy as much as he wanted.
If you live in canada this issue is none of your business and we have nothing more to say I cant tell canadians what to do and you cant tell us
No. My point is that someone who respects the law and buys an arsenal can go crazy one day and make a masscre.
I might not go that far Fire them without compensation or benefits Either way it will get the attention of sleepwalking government employees
Which means what? As in so what? In this case, we had abundant justification for not selling weapons to this one. USAF failed to effectively perform their legal responsibility, and failed to alert the FBI of the convictions and adding him to the no sell list. So, given this, what possibly is your point?
Perhaps it's time that government actually be held accountable for their failures. Now that would be a message worth sending.
His bad conduct discharge would NOT have prevented him from buying a gun although it should have. The Air Force for whatever reason almost NEVER has this kind of thing added into the NIC Both things are issues...but more importantly,,,we need a better registration process that includes a Federally mandated waiting period and better universal back ground checks mandated for ANY gun sale
He had far more than a bad conduct record in the AF and the AF didn't follow procedure on this. "Kelley should have been barred from purchasing firearms and body armor because of his domestic violence conviction in 2014 while serving at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico. He was sentenced to a year in prison and kicked out of the military with a bad conduct discharge following two counts of domestic abuse against his wife and a child, according to Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek".
Which means guns proliferation is the main issue. Unless you can guarantee that gun owners mental health remains stable throughout their lives.
Guns are a part of american freedom and the best you can do is make every effort to keep them out of the wrong hands. The alternative is to keep them out of all hands which is not acceptable to the vast majority of Americans not to mention the fact that it's not possible. Making all gun ownership illegal would insure that only criminals have guns and would open up a whole new means of wealth for criminal enterprises in the form of gun smuggling and sales.
The vast majority of Americans want more security and they will agree to change things if we offer them solutions that work elsewhere. That's the extreme. No need to get there to get results. As long as you deny the problem, there will be 350+ mass shooting each year and the death toll will continue to increase.
Of course we can - why should it matter to anyone how many guns of what kind a normal,law abiding citizen has?
Obviously you don't understand the American culture. We don't want more security we want the ability to provide our own security.
Still waiting for you to show that they work elsewhere. The number of gun-related murders in the US has fallen 55% since 1993. I suggest we keep doing what we're doing. Why do you disagree?
Wow, absolute guarantees now... Who knew? So, just help us with an understanding of what, if any, areas we can have that level of assurity for. We'll wait...
Same thing here. Except our murder rate was already five times lower than yours in 1993. Not a surprise for me. Because you put the 2nd Amendment before people's safety.
It's impossible to guarantee it. That's the point. That's why gun proliferation is a much bigger problem than mental illness.