What law()s) would have stopped the Buffalo shooting?

There is one which could of stopped it had the boy been delt with earlier.
He had made threats at school and had he been charged it would of prevented him for buying a gun .

 

The key now is swift justice followed by execution.

Execute the Buffalo Shooter. The highest punishment sends a message to those deranged few who will admire his actions.

"Our response to the Buffalo mass shooting should be that a monster committed a heinous and indefensible act, and that justice demands we hold him to final account. Try him, convict him, and put him to death."

"Certain offenses are so reprehensible as to be unforgiveable. To fail to answer a vicious, hate-motivated rampage with anything but death is to deny the requirements of retribution."

"Executing Gendron sends a message to those deranged few who will admire his actions: violently enacting your bigotry is intolerable to our society. Hate-crime laws can be seen as a set of guard rails, delimiting certain criminal behavior as incompatible with shared values of civic tolerance and respect for one’s fellow citizens. When those laws are egregiously violated, capital punishment can restore the moral order that the law exists to defend."

"Gendron can also be charged under federal hate-crime and homicide laws carrying a possible penalty of death, just as Emmanuel AME church shooter Dylann Roof was. But doing so would require the Biden administration to undo its death penalty moratorium. If Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice is really serious about combatting hate crimes, then it will proceed accordingly."

 

So they can only defend themselves with a gun, nothing else works.

 

You demonstrated nothing except for your inability to demonstrate it.

 

They should just use pepper spray or a stick and hope it works out or perhaps they can do it some other Democrat suggested and just urinate themselves?

 

What federal laws would have stopped it?

 

What happens during those years? The bad guys will manage to keep their guns, but the law abiding will lose theirs.

I would give up my guns in a second, if I thought that would save one life. We live at least fifteen minutes from law enforcement. The bad guys kill us and are long gone before law enforcement gets here. Most likely we will never have to use them. However, that can be said for many life saving devices.

The guns are already here. We have to deal with how things are now. Not with how we wish they would be. A start would be to prosecute those who violate the laws rather than just telling them to be good boys and turning them loose.

 

Guns in the US are not going anywhere. Period. Doesn't matter if you ban all sales of guns and of the making of gun parts or munition. Every single part of a gun from its parts to the bullet is able to be made with just a bit of extra knowledge. The major parts of guns can be made with a 3D printer. Springs can be bought at any handyman store. And black powder can be made right at home with nitrate fertilizer, BBQ charcoal, and sulfur which can be distilled from something as easy to get as Epsom Salts, assuming that you don't live near or can't get to a volcano or hot spring area (hello...Yellowstone!)

Both of you have pipe dreams. But there are ways to reduce people using guns to commit crimes, mass murder etc etc. But I don't think that either of you would be up for it since it has nothing to do with gun confiscation.

 

Biologically that is correct. :shrug: The average woman vs the average male in a toe to toe fight? I'll place my bet on the male any day o the week.

 

You want to control people.

 

Says the person that wants to completely ban and confiscate all guns. The same action every single dictator did before going full dictatorial. Stop projecting. But we do get it. You can't argue the facts so you just launch into an attack.

I am curious though...how does upholding peoples Right to Bare Arms create more control over people? Fear? No, that ain't it because they also have a Right to Bare Arms. Meaning that they can just get a gun of their own and equalize the situation. So...do tell...

 

Are you saying there are better alternatives for defense than guns. Please do explain. Or are you making the worlds stupidest argument

 

READ! Where the hell did I say anything about "losing guns"?

It's exactly the opposite: the bad guys would seem to me more likely to use up their ammunition. Hopefully against each other.

 

The poster asked what would have prevented it. THAT would have made it much more difficult to the point where it might have prevented it. Banning military-style weapons intended to kill many people in a short amount of time could also make cases in the future much more difficult to the point of saving many lives.

 

Not really. I can download the plans for a ghost gun right now off the internet and print one in about 30 minutes.

 

You talked about no replacement parts. That is the same as "losing guns"

They have the capability to make their own ammunition.

 

Print what? A whole AR? Or are we talking about a single shot .38? Cuz I could make a single shot .38 with $30 at the hardware store in about that same amount of time, and most anyone else could as well. But nobody wants a single shot .38.

 

glad we agree your argument sucks

 

Yeha ! Let's do that! At 6'2" and 260 lbs... I rule 90% of were ever I am! And If you step up and challenge that, you have about a split second to dodge whatever improvised weapon or club I can grab.. yeah.. get reid of the only way a 90 lb woman could fend off an attacker.

 

What laws? Who knows.. I'd think that somewhere in the months of planning this earthbound demon did, someone, somewhere would have caught wind of this plan. ...

...

oh yeah.. the FBI did;..... funny how they are at the root of just about every incident of domestic terrorism and violence.

 

You can't create laws to stop every crime. This is a sad end result in the ultra divisive political atmosphere and relentless injection of political propaganda like the "replacement theory". Most people know its garbage, but some take it for gospel, become radicalized and act out. It works the same with other topics like radical islam. Most don't listen to it, but some are radicalized and act out in form of terrorism. The difference here is that the islamists are more organized, while this guy acted on his own.

 

While you may delete and ignore the majority of my post it won't change the facts of what I said. Looks to me like what I said made you not so sure of your "theory".

 

It's not an AR, but it will accomplish just as much as an AR.

 

What theory? I indicated that the person who asked posed a hypothetical. I responded to the hypothetical. The opening sentence "Me?" should have given you a clue that this meant "If it were up to me...". OBVIOUSLY it's not up to me. So your insistence on arguing a hypothetical that every single rational human being understood was just a hypothetical, is most definitely worthy of being deleted and ignored.