Another mass shooting deserves a better answer.

Because that would be in violation of the Firearm Owner's Protection Act of 1986.

http://fbinicsystem.com/federal-and-us-gun-laws/firearms-owners-protection-act-1986.html

https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/senate-bill/49

 

It's strange how that works isn't it, it's almost like he... Didn't obey the law. Is there a word for people like that?

 

Customers are searched as they enter Walmart?

And as for the gun requirement:
https://www.texasmonthly.com/the-da...ivists-are-very-upset-with-walmart-right-now/
Open Carry Texas Activists Are Pretty Upset With Walmart Right Now. So can open carry if licensed!


Here we have posters from Texas refuting that signs are present and posters saying that no one would know unless they have x-ray vision and no one would take notice unless challenged
https://www.texasguntalk.com/threads/30-06-and-30-07-sign-postings.92103/page-13
Some extracts:
June 12th 2019: "I don't shop at Target, but the Walmarts here only have signs that say you must be licensed."

June 13th 2019 "Yeah, that’s all I’ve seen, because they sell alcohol."

June 13th 2019 "Georgetown Target & all WMarts that I have been to are 06 & 07 signless."

June 24th 2019 "OK, sounds like we can ignore those signs as long as we leave promptly if orally notified."

July 31st 2019 "No signs at the local WalMart. Only the one that says they sell alcohol and you must have a license to carry."

Aug 1st 2019 " Since the topic has wandered a bit I'll add a 2¢ observations
1. Walmarts do not post Texas legal 30.06 or 30.07 signs
2. Concealed is concealed unless someone has X-Ray vision
3. Until Texas regains independence the US 2A protects armed citizens rights to arm and Texas law is infrigement"

Aug 1st 2019: "Wal mart doesn't post any 30.06, and I don't recall even seeing any 30.07 signs at any, so....... ok. Concealed is concealed. And your point?

 

Typically people that obey the law don't break it.

 

Yet most of the posters from the pro-gun Texas website that I linked to stated that they would ignore any notices unless orally challenged, concealed means no one would know, and stated that Walmart did not actually display any 06 or 07 notices anyway.

 

Once again, nothing more than a fallacious appeal to emotion, and wishing harm upon others so that they might come to support a specific political narrative in the aftermath.

 

In this particular case, the "bad guy" was the one armed with the rifle at the time.

Such did not prevent the incident known as the North Hollywood shootout, despite it being in the state of California, and being committed by two known criminals.

 

The problem is that the united states government, both at the federal level and the local level, are devoid of both a legitimate reason, and a legal basis, for maintaining a list of legal firearm owners.

 

So when confronted with inconvenient facts about how the location of the mass shooting prohibited the legal carrying of firearms by the public, the response on the part of yourself is to basically accuse legal firearm owners of knowingly violating the law.

Such a course of action is very telling about the quality of the individual who is suggesting such.

 

So like I said, your link debunks whether it’s a crime picture or an electoral map picture. It says they were both electoral maps. It says NOTHING about whether the crime occurs in those areas or not.

So maybe you can get it:

Meme is posted containing two pics that says one is the electoral map and the other a crime map. Your link tells us that both pics in the meme are electoral maps and says nothing about where the crime occurs. It debunked that meme(because it’s using two electoral map pics), but it does not debunk if the crime occurs in those areas, just debunks that one of the pictures isn’t the right one.

 

From the ATF itself.

https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/firearms-trace-data

https://www.atf.gov/docs/undefined/cawebsite17183919pdf/download

For the given year of the data, the ATF was asked to trace forty one thousand, five hundred and twenty seven firearms that were found in the possession of criminals in the state of California, to determine where the firearms were acquired.

Of that amount, the ATF determined through sales records that seventeen thousand, nine hundred of the firearms were originally sold within the state of California itself. Or forty three percent.

In the state of California, every single firearms purchase is subjected to licensing, registration, and permit to purchase requirements. There are no circumstances under which an individual can legally acquire a firearm without the state knowing about such, as even private transfers require completion of a background check and registration. All firearms must be stored under lock and key. If a firearm is lost or stolen, the legal owner is required to report such immediately or face criminal prosecution.

Yet despite all of that, forty three out of every one hundred firearms found possessed by criminals within the state of California, were originally sold within the state of California itself.

The next highest amount of firearms was traced to the state of Arizona, coming in at two thousand one hundred and eighty five. Or approximately one half of one percent.

If licensing and registration requirements did actually serve to prevent illegal firearms trafficking, such simply would not be the case. The ATF should not be able to successfully trace even five percent of those firearms to the state of California, much less forty three percent. There is no standard or unit of measurement where a forty three percent rate of failure is considered acceptable or a success. With the firearm-related restrictions in the state of California, there is no excuse for such figures.

Barely. The Parkland incident, and the Sandy Hook incident, both had significantly lower body counts, despite being committed with rifles.

 

It is not "cheating" to produce a product that is in full compliance with the law as it is presented. Blame those who actually drafted the legislation.

Short of specifying that semi-automatic firearms themselves cannot legally be owned by the public, such is not going to happen. Even now firearm manufacturers are producing AR-15 rifles that have been designed and redesigned to be in compliance with the firearm-related restrictions of the state of California.

 

Short of outlawing semi-automatic technology itself, such will not be possible.

Except it has already been proven that such is not the case.

Or they would have simply acquired the same firearms in an illegal transaction, just as criminals in the city of Chicago and every other state manage to do. Or their weapon of choice would have been a different firearm that was available, they would have still committed their illegal acts, and both incidents would still qualify as a mass shooting.

And before it is attempted on the part of yourself to argue the body counts would have been lower, exactly what is the acceptable number of firearm-related deaths per criminal incident?

Do not go down that route of discussion, unless there is a desire on the part of yourself to be accused of not actually caring about the saving of lives, and being forced to justify your out of hand dismissal of murder based on overall numbers.

 

Didn’t respond to your last part but here you go:

Assault rifles are not used in these shootings. Semi-automatic rifles are. Assault rifles have select fire capabilities, i.e., full auto AND semi auto as well as burst on some models. And since you apparently don’t seem to get this: more people die every year from being beaten with hands and feet than are shot and killed by ALL rifles, combined. That includes assault rifles(which again, aren’t used in these mass shootings).

 

Did you notice he says assault rifles, which weren’t used in either of those incidents you mentioned. Semi auto weapons, one and all.

 

They catch you with a gun they call the cops and you go to jail. Class A misdemeanor anywhere unless they serve alcohol or its a correctional facility, then its a felony. More than one place on mall grounds serves booze.
As to carry: LTC's in texas commit less crime than cops do so.... maybe you're barking up the wrong tree.
By the time the cops respond in most cases the shooting is pretty much over if one of the victims was armed. They get there minutes later when they're working security for the venue ffs. They can tell by how everyone is saying "hey thanks man" and "we're all ok officers" and no one is shooting anymore. You realize they actually receive training for this?

You know absolutely nothing about firearms laws or history, or function. Please, leave this discussion to those of us qualified to have it.

 

None of which refutes my points above.

 

"Mandatory class to pass in handling?"

CCW?

 

This was the picture I wanted someone to send you. They would indeed still have had their weapon of choice.

Additionally: With very little effort any one of them could've built the above weapons in their garage with commonly available tools and knowledge.

 

https://www.concealedcarry.com/news...-95-of-the-time-at-active-shooter-events-fbi/

Tell it to the math dear.

 

There is this cute arrow that goes back and back to me responding to your first post, there is no "stall."

Now you want me to comment on "unifying license and registration," well most people are afraid of that because it makes it easier for the "liberal" tyrant lovers to confiscate guns from people who are only a threat to your one party dictatorship. We don't trust you!

How about a "unifying license and registration" to carry a mental illness, or a record of having been convicted of using a weapon to commit a crime? The first one will probably fail because "liberals" think a "mental illness is a disease like any other," remember the commercial, back when Cotter Pin was big on halfway houses in Georgia. The second one will probably fail because Cynthia Tucker had multiple pages on releasing the "resident genus" because more than 500 murderers and multiple murderers had been released while he was in for shoving a knife in a woman's heart.

Yeah, mentally ill guy in Jimmy Carter halfway kills, gets out six years later kills again, and Cynthia Tucker had a full page spread trying to remove the law that keeps Aquarius in the institution.

The only way a background check works is if we know they are carrying a mental illness...and don't let the bad cars on the road, ever.

 

If worried about accidental shootings, probably should have mentioned that in the first post, you know, the post I responded to; your Kung Fu stinks.

 

By your comment I know you didn't even look at the link I posted which expressed an opinion by a noted libertarian and Constitutional lawyer who often supports liberal causes. Did you even reply to the correct post? What specifically do you call a revisionist editing of facts in the Rutherford Institute commentary I posted?

 

And they could have used a semi-automatic rifle that didn't have a pistol grip so what? You're talking cosmetics. And these last two shooters passed background checks.

 

The following is a quote from the El Paso shooter's manifesto:

"Remember: it is not cowardly to pick low hanging fruit. AKA (sic) Don’t attack heavily guarded areas to fulfll (sic) your super soldier COD [Call of Duty first person shooter video game] fantasy. Attack low security targets. Even though you might out gun a security guard or police man, they likely beat you in armor, training and numbers. Do not throw away your life on an unnecessarily dangerous target. If a target seems too hot, live to fight another day."

And the following is a basic summation from this article's reporter:

"So it is that these most recent massacres share the one common element of almost all mass casualty shootings: gun-free zones."


https://spectator.org/mass-shootings-in-gun-free-zones/