[Discussion] Mass Shooting at Uvalde Elementary School

[GopherRock 1765]

The harder you make the target, the weaker you make the weakness. 

[Captainant 27404]

25 minutes ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:

I don’t own a gun, nor give a shit about what obstacles one has to go through if the government one day decides to make it tougher to acquire one. I think it’s crazy how easy it is for disturbed folks to get guns in under an hour. Maybe start out with first and foremost family history? If one has a father, brother etc that’s served time for guns? Moms on meth like in this instance….maybe those folks should have to go through extreme background checks of basically everything along with evaluations, classes and delays.

If family history shows registered gun owners are clean and for years or generations they’ve followed all of the rules to owning a gun, then those individuals could possibly get by easier with purchasing a gun- maybe a co-sign if someone’s under 21.


I’m just responding to someone posting about toothless reform and zero compromise. What’s your shared reality? Mine is these events will continue to happen. idiots like you will spend 10 hrs a day posting how raged they are, this thread eventually drops to page 2,3 and 4 and then out of mind until next one.

Lol a gun owner registry will NEVER happen, it's one of the big NRA tent pole issues. And also, you'll hit some major constitutionality issues if you're restricting people based on family history.

IMO - it's too easy to acquire a gun legally. The Uvalde shooter bought two legally right after turning 18. We should raise the minimum age to buy firearms of all types, and put in some waiting period or an actually effective background check. In the current system, if the check takes too long it gets auto-aporoved. Seriously.

[Dahobbs 17420]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

Lol a gun owner registry will NEVER happen, it's one of the big NRA tent pole issues. And also, you'll hit some major constitutionality issues if you're restricting people based on family history.

IMO - it's too easy to acquire a gun legally. The Uvalde shooter bought two legally right after turning 18. We should raise the minimum age to buy firearms of all types, and put in some waiting period or an actually effective background check. In the current system, if the check takes too long it gets auto-aporoved. Seriously.

I think a waiting period would be huge. Any legitimate gun purchases, whether for hunting, fun, or home defense can easily wait a few weeks. There is no reason anyone should be able to walk into a store and walk out with a new gun on the same day. That's just a recipe for angry people to get access to a lethal tool without any time for their emotions to cool down. 

[texas08 1599]

Yep.

Some of the memes out there like the “you gotta be 21 and in most cases 25 to rent a fucking car in Texas” but 18 to buy a fucking weapon.

[midtown 3341]

7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I think a waiting period would be huge. Any legitimate gun purchases, whether for hunting, fun, or home defense can easily wait a few weeks. There is no reason anyone should be able to walk into a store and walk out with a new gun on the same day. That's just a recipe for angry people to get access to a lethal tool without any time for their emotions to cool down. 

I  think you can very easily exempt shotguns and bolt action rifles IMO.   No one is committing mass murder with an over and under or .270.    Just anything semi-auto

[HRSchenker 2258]

Front page of the Dallas Morning News 

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

10 minutes ago, midtown said:

I  think you can very easily exempt shotguns and bolt action rifles IMO.   No one is committing mass murder with an over and under or .270.    Just anything semi-auto

And yet we outlaw sawed off shotguns and Yeehaw-dists dont freak about that. There is something specific to the AR and AK platforms that they identify with that they will fight to the death to hold onto. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the politicians that glorify them in every fucking campaign ad calling themselves true patriots. But don't politicize them. 

[Fondren & Main 6665]

2 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

And yet we outlaw sawed off shotguns and Yeehaw-dists dont freak about that. There is something specific to the AR and AK platforms that they identify with that they will fight to the death to hold onto. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the politicians that glorify them in every fucking campaign ad calling themselves true patriots. But don't politicize them. 

Sawed off shotgun isn’t fun to shoot.  Very little recoil with an AR-15.  🤷‍♂️ 

[Brisketexan 104537]

I don’t own a gun, nor give a shit about what obstacles one has to go through if the government one day decides to make it tougher to acquire one. I think it’s crazy how easy it is for disturbed folks to get guns in under an hour. Maybe start out with first and foremost family history? If one has a father, brother etc that’s served time for guns? Moms on meth like in this instance….maybe those folks should have to go through extreme background checks of basically everything along with evaluations, classes and delays.

If family history shows registered gun owners are clean and for years or generations they’ve followed all of the rules to owning a gun, then those individuals could possibly get by easier with purchasing a gun- maybe a co-sign if someone’s under 21.


I’m just responding to someone posting about toothless reform and zero compromise. What’s your shared reality? Mine is these events will continue to happen. idiots like you will spend 10 hrs a day posting how raged they are, this thread eventually drops to page 2,3 and 4 and then out of mind until next one.

Correction: I don’t think the “Active Shooter” thread has ever dropped off p. 1. Think about that for a moment.

[Jshep34 2303]

Honest question to any gun owners on here, what/why is the need for a common citizen to own a high capacity long rifle? Any style weapon that can fire 10 plus rounds in a single clip while firing on 1 squeeze of the trigger?

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

26 minutes ago, Fondren & Main said:

Sawed off shotgun isn’t fun to shoot.  Very little recoil with an AR-15.  🤷‍♂️ 

Yet far more effective in a self defense situation in your home. Love the visual of someone with a long gun running down their hallways getting to a defensive position while hopped up on adrenaline and fear. Then shooting holes thru walls into their neighbors house. 

[tbone_ 14020]

I read that the SS will not allow guns to be present at Trumps speech at the NRA circle jerk this weekend.

Is it just me or is that that absolute possible height of hypocrisy?


Edit: I guess the debate is whether the NRA banned them or the Secret Service. I say who gives a shit. Total hypocrisy.

[Celery Man 20881]

11 minutes ago, Jshep34 said:

Honest question to any gun owners on here, what/why is the need for a common citizen to own a high capacity long rifle? Any style weapon that can fire 10 plus rounds in a single clip while firing on 1 squeeze of the trigger?


 

Hogs are like elementary school children in that a rifle of this sort is the best tool for mowing them down.

[Pato del Muerto 52336]

35 minutes ago, Jshep34 said:

Honest question to any gun owners on here, what/why is the need for a common citizen to own a high capacity long rifle? Any style weapon that can fire 10 plus rounds in a single clip while firing on 1 squeeze of the trigger?


 

Sounds like you are describing a full auto gun. Those are illegal. Semi auto means 10 trigger pulls for 10 shots. 
 

of course there’s ways to modify some weapons to become full auto and videos online how to do it, but since it’s illegal I’m sure no law and order patriots do it. 

[Macanudo 12925]

40 minutes ago, Jshep34 said:

Honest question to any gun owners on here, what/why is the need for a common citizen to own a high capacity long rifle? Any style weapon that can fire 10 plus rounds in a single clip while firing on 1 squeeze of the trigger?


 

Dude, we need high capacity magazines to protect us from the tyranny of the government.  

Didn't you know, Civil War is coming.

[Pato del Muerto 52336]

2 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

Dude, we need high capacity magazines to protect us from the tyranny of the government.  

Didn't you know, Civil War is coming.

Yes we need ar-15s with 30 round mags to have a chance against…checks notes…all the shit we are sending to Ukraine right now plus better stuff we aren’t. 

Edited May 28, 2022 by Pato del Muerto

[Dahobbs 17420]

1 hour ago, midtown said:

I  think you can very easily exempt shotguns and bolt action rifles IMO.   No one is committing mass murder with an over and under or .270.    Just anything semi-auto

But why? I agree a mass shooting would be more difficult with those weapons (but hardly impossible). But you still have the scorned lover or the hot head that can grab a gun quickly. I just don't see a reason why any gun should be able to be acquired same day. 

[MNLonghornFUKM 8799]

Lol a gun owner registry will NEVER happen, it's one of the big NRA tent pole issues. And also, you'll hit some major constitutionality issues if you're restricting people based on family history.
IMO - it's too easy to acquire a gun legally. The Uvalde shooter bought two legally right after turning 18. We should raise the minimum age to buy firearms of all types, and put in some waiting period or an actually effective background check. In the current system, if the check takes too long it gets auto-aporoved. Seriously.

Don’t you think the Pro gun/NRA folk that have abided by laws for generations would love to be separated from those like Ramos? A one size fits all policy to purchase firearms just doesn’t work.



Or hell. Even being grandfathered in. Make it hard for people like me who’ve never owned a gun after 37 years but now need one. Those who’ve been purchasing for years and are clearly not mass murderers don’t need extensive background checks


Whatever makes both sides happy while weeding out those planning mass murder shitstains, I’m all for. If we step on the 250 Year old constitution here and there, so be it. Those who can pass a background check for a gun purchase tomorrow should have no problem with this. Those who can’t probably have no business getting a gun without the right screenings

[midtown 3341]

Because it's going to be hard to get any compromise from the gun nuts. Let them have those. Let's focus on the semis.

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

6 minutes ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:

Don’t you think the Pro gun/NRA folk that have abided by laws for generations would love to be separated from those like Ramos? A one size fits all policy to purchase firearms just doesn’t work.



Or hell. Even being grandfathered in. Make it hard for people like me who’ve never owned a gun after 37 years but now need one. Those who’ve been purchasing for years and are clearly not mass murderers don’t need extensive background checks


Whatever makes both sides happy while weeding out those planning mass murder shitstains, I’m all for. If we step on the 250 Year old constitution here and there, so be it. Those who can pass a background check for a gun purchase tomorrow should have no problem with this. Those who can’t probably have no business getting a gun without the right screenings

A "reasonable" gun owner would, but those are too quiet to enact change. The common ones will scream about the deep state putting them on some list to be killed by Soros and some socialist agenda. 

Edited May 28, 2022 by SmokeyTheBear

[Dahobbs 17420]

10 minutes ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:

Don’t you think the Pro gun/NRA folk that have abided by laws for generations would love to be separated from those like Ramos? A one size fits all policy to purchase firearms just doesn’t work.



Or hell. Even being grandfathered in. Make it hard for people like me who’ve never owned a gun after 37 years but now need one. Those who’ve been purchasing for years and are clearly not mass murderers don’t need extensive background checks


Whatever makes both sides happy while weeding out those planning mass murder shitstains, I’m all for. If we step on the 250 Year old constitution here and there, so be it. Those who can pass a background check for a gun purchase tomorrow should have no problem with this. Those who can’t probably have no business getting a gun without the right screenings

You're not going to be able to discriminate based on family history. That's too akin to collective punishment. It would technically be a war crime and definitely violate due process and probably the 8th amendment. 

10 minutes ago, midtown said:

Because it's going to be hard to get any compromise from the gun nuts. Let them have those. Let's focus on the semis.

There is no point trying to compromise with a group that will not compromise. The people you are talking about aren't going to agree any restriction like that anyway unless it is neutered to the point of being unenforceable.  

Edited May 28, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Hmbre97 6297]

Don’t you think the Pro gun/NRA folk that have abided by laws for generations would love to be separated from those like Ramos? A one size fits all policy to purchase firearms just doesn’t work.



Or hell. Even being grandfathered in. Make it hard for people like me who’ve never owned a gun after 37 years but now need one. Those who’ve been purchasing for years and are clearly not mass murderers don’t need extensive background checks


Whatever makes both sides happy while weeding out those planning mass murder shitstains, I’m all for. If we step on the 250 Year old constitution here and there, so be it. Those who can pass a background check for a gun purchase tomorrow should have no problem with this. Those who can’t probably have no business getting a gun without the right screenings

 
The problem is there is no meaningful reform that will make both sides happy. One side wants no reform whatsoever around firearms so there is nothing offered for "compromise". 

[Hmbre97 6297]

As far right as the GOP has swung and now that they're starting to get more mainstream traction thanks to the popularity of MAGA'ism, I would not be shocked in the least if they regain control in 2024, we're going to see an attempt to roll back the NFA or FOPA at some point.

[burntorangebongos 10681]

32 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

But why? I agree a mass shooting would be more difficult with those weapons (but hardly impossible). But you still have the scorned lover or the hot head that can grab a gun quickly. I just don't see a reason why any gun should be able to be acquired same day. 

That is fine but let us start with preventing school mass shootings first. Increased age of purchaser and banning high-capacity magazines is the two items that will help us get there. This is the goal we all have to concentrate on. Healthcare for the lost kids falling through the cracks is important too. 

Edited May 28, 2022 by burntorangebongos

[Archer 474]

2 hours ago, midtown said:

I  think you can very easily exempt shotguns and bolt action rifles IMO.   No one is committing mass murder with an over and under or .270.    Just anything semi-auto

Umm you sure about that?

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_tower_shooting

[nullset 0]

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

 

It’s impossible to state how “hot garbage” that piece is. But I’ll just throw one curveball that wrecks the whole thing:
Now do Buffalo grocery stores and El Paso Wal-Marts.

Jesus tapdancing Christ, it isn’t JUST schools, schools are just the most heinous example. It’s as if sections of our highways periodically exploded and destroyed all the vehicles on them. One day, they destroy 5 sedans in Buffalo, filled with a mix of folks. We’re horrified, but I guess not horrified enough. The next day, one segment blows up in Uvalde and kills a school bus full of elementary school kids, to our profound horror.

Abbott, Cruz, and their moronic sycophants would spend the entire time talking about “hardening school buses,” and “better bus driver training,” and other bullshit. NO, YOU MALEVOLENT FUCKSTICKS, IT’S NOT ABOUT THE SCHOOL BUSES, IT’S ABOUT THE REGULARLY EXPLODING ROADS. THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT IT’S ABOUT.

 

Apologies for piling on to this completely worthless article, but I think it's important to note (not that most others are of any other mindset on this point) that the Ted Cruzes and Breitbart/GOP psychos do understand that logically their line of thinking would involving "hardening" every public space a potential shooter could target, but they simply don't care about non-school shootings (to be fair they don't truly care about dead elementary school kids, its just so beyond the pale that they have to actually engage with the aftermath in a real way. ) For dead grocery shoppers/church goers/etc., Ted Cruz/GOP psychos are entirely off the "tough shit its a consequence of our 2A rights" variety. At this point the "more policing" aspect seems to be almost entirely feature and very little bug. 

[midtown 3341]

The fact that you have to go back over half a century to find an example proves my point

[Hmbre97 6297]

Umm you sure about that?
 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_tower_shooting

Yes

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting

[Dahobbs 17420]

13 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

That is fine but let us start with preventing school mass shootings first. Increased age of purchaser and banning high-capacity magazines is the two items that will help us get there. This is the goal we all have to concentrate on. Healthcare for the lost kids falling through the cracks is important too. 

I'm not sure how your posts responds to mine. A mandatory waiting period for every gun purchase would definitely help prevent mass shootings. Hell, it would have prevented this one. 

[immamac 42513]

5 minutes ago, Hmbre97 said:

Yes

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting

Just in case people want to compare the 2.

14 dead in 96 minutes (UT Tower)

63 dead and 481 injured with over 1000 rounds fired (Las Vegas) guy was dead sometime less than 80 minutes from start. 
 

Im thinking about not banning people, but giving them flair and shaming them for such incredibly stupid takes. 

[Brisketexan 104537]

Dude, we need high capacity magazines to protect us from the tyranny of the government.  
Didn't you know, Civil War is coming.

Here’s the thing….”civil war” is exactly the reason the deranged MAGA crowd wants as many weapons as they can. But not to protect themselves…rather, because THEY are the ones actively fomenting violence and civil collapse.
MAGAs insisting that we need ARs to protect against those waging war against the republic is akin to Al Qaeda saying they need to be able to carry guns on airplanes because there might be a terrorist on board.

[burntorangebongos 10681]

6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I'm not sure how your posts responds to mine. A mandatory waiting period for every gun purchase would definitely help prevent mass shootings. Hell, it would have prevented this one. 

I want the 2 items that statistically have proven to be the problem to be the first priority. I would love a mandatory waiting period. If that happens then yay. But the other two is what I want to have everyone concentrate on first because they have proven to be the biggest factors.

[Dahobbs 17420]

Just now, burntorangebongos said:

I want the 2 items that statistically have proven to be the problem to be the first priority. I would love a mandatory waiting period. If that happens then yay. But the other two is what I want to have everyone concentrate on first because they have proven to be the biggest factors.

I still don't know what that means. What are you referring to? 

[burntorangebongos 10681]

That all the mass school shootings over the decades all have gunmen under 22 years of age. Only Charles Whitman was 25. 

The other thing is assault weapons with high capacity magazines. If we do the sensible thing and raise the age to 25 for assault weapons and ban high capacity mags, then it is my opinion that these two items will greatly reduce the likely hood of this shit happening in the future. 

 

[Dahobbs 17420]

1 minute ago, burntorangebongos said:

That all the mass school shootings over the decades all have gunmen under 22 years of age. Only Charles Whitman was 25. 

The other thing is assault weapons with high capacity magazines. If we do the sensible thing and raise the age to 25 for assault weapons and ban high capacity mags, then it is my opinion that these two items will greatly reduce the likely hood of this shit happening in the future. 

 

I think all those things need to happen. It seems like the waiting period would be the easiest politically, but probably still impossible. 

[Pato del Muerto 52336]

Just now, burntorangebongos said:

That all the mass school shootings over the decades all have gunmen under 22 years of age. Only Charles Whitman was 25. 

The other thing is assault weapons with high capacity magazines. If we do the sensible thing and raise the age to 25 for assault weapons and ban high capacity mags, then it is my opinion that these two items will greatly reduce the likely hood of this shit happening in the future. 

 

And since neither of these items have any real (but probably imagined by some) constitutional issues, they should be able to be enacted without issue with sufficient votes. 
 

we won’t do the right thing and commit fully, but even inching forward would be better than not. 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4968]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

But why? I agree a mass shooting would be more difficult with those weapons (but hardly impossible). But you still have the scorned lover or the hot head that can grab a gun quickly. I just don't see a reason why any gun should be able to be acquired same day. 

There are a few legitimate reasons. Like if you are out of town and happen to come across something rare that you've been looking for for a long time. I'm not sure if you can get something shipped directly to you from a FFL or not if you have already completed the transfer and are just waiting on a waiting period, but that would seem reasonable. But the other big one would be like when somebody posts bail and has made threats towards their victims. There could obviously be a system to grant exceptions for stuff like that.

[burntorangebongos 10681]

We can't let it be impossible anymore. We need to press for this or we are loser fucks who have failed the children. We can't let them be afraid to be at a place among their friends and where they grow knowledge and skills. That is not acceptable. 

 

[Snake Diggity 4614]

2 hours ago, Jshep34 said:

Honest question to any gun owners on here, what/why is the need for a common citizen to own a high capacity long rifle? Any style weapon that can fire 10 plus rounds in a single clip while firing on 1 squeeze of the trigger?


 

Not a gun owner but seen them answer this question enough to know there are 2 answers:

”I don’t need a reason, it’s my constitutional right.”

”To protect myself and mine from an oppressive federal government or others who intend to do me harm.”

[B00M 6280]

3 hours ago, Captainant said:

Lol a gun owner registry will NEVER happen, it's one of the big NRA tent pole issues.

Meanwhile at the ATF... 

 

3 hours ago, HRSchenker said:

Front page of the Dallas Morning News 

 

[midtown 3341]

2 hours ago, Jshep34 said:

Honest question to any gun owners on here, what/why is the need for a common citizen to own a high capacity long rifle? Any style weapon that can fire 10 plus rounds in a single clip while firing on 1 squeeze of the trigger?

The only real reason is that they are fun to shoot.   And a few people can say they are great way to kill hogs.    My son and I have rented them and even debated buying one but seemed like a lot of money for something to use for target practice and to shoot hogs at my buddies ranch.   

But just to be clear.   People and the media need to stop saying that automatic weapons are legal.  They are not unless you have a federal license.   I stated above that if they do want to keep them legal then at least put them in the same category as fully auto and add all the barriers to ownership. 

[B00M 6280]

24 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

That all the mass school shootings over the decades all have gunmen under 22 years of age. Only Charles Whitman was 25. 

The other thing is assault weapons with high capacity magazines. If we do the sensible thing and raise the age to 25 for assault weapons and ban high capacity mags, then it is my opinion that these two items will greatly reduce the likely hood of this shit happening in the future. 

 

Cho @ VTech was 23 but yeah they're generally very young.

[Not that Bob 734]

Age to obtain firearms should be raised to, at least 25. Below from Nature.com Most, if not all of these shooters are young men in the below age range. Not the solution but a part of the solution.

This is the first large-scale epidemiological meta-analysis that includes all available general population birth, cross-sectional and incidence studies investigating the age at onset of any ICD/DSM-mental disorders. Overall, the global onset of the first mental disorder occurs before age 14 in one-third of individuals, age 18 in almost half (48.4%), and before age 25 in half (62.5%), with a peak/median age at onset of 14.5/18 years across all mental disorders.

[Hmbre97 6297]

14 minutes ago, midtown said:

The only real reason is that they are fun to shoot.   And a few people can say they are great way to kill hogs.    My son and I have rented them and even debated buying one but seemed like a lot of money for something to use for target practice and to shoot hogs at my buddies ranch.   

But just to be clear.   People and the media need to stop saying that automatic weapons are legal.  They are not unless you have a federal license.   I stated above that if they do want to keep them legal then at least put them in the same category as fully auto and add all the barriers to ownership. 

 

This is where I'm at. Anything semiauto needs to be moved to a Class III designation, including handguns. The approval process through the ATF would serve as a built-in waiting period. If someone wants a gun sooner, buy a revolver or a bolt-action rifle/shotgun.

This as well as raising the age to purchase/own a firearm as well as enhanced background checks would curb a lot of these incidents. 

Edited May 28, 2022 by Hmbre97

[HRSchenker 2258]

3 hours ago, Jshep34 said:

Honest question to any gun owners on here, what/why is the need for a common citizen to own a high capacity long rifle? Any style weapon that can fire 10 plus rounds in a single clip while firing on 1 squeeze of the trigger?

I'm assuming you're referring to magazine capacity. The Parkland shooter had 10 round mags. An obvious response being that he would have done more damage with a "high capacity" magazine but he was still able to do what he did with 10. What difference does it make when there are still so many victims? Does it make a shooting more acceptable if only 5 round mags were legal? I would certainly hope not.

[ohchaucer 1443]

Serious nomenclature question: does “handgun” only mean pistols with clips vs revolvers (and revolvers are their own category of gun)? And if so, are CHL licenses for both types of guns? I’ve see a few posters distinguish between handgun and revolver and I always assumed they were all in the same category.

I’ll hang up and listen.

[Helobious 9480]

1 hour ago, Archer said:

Umm you sure about that?

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_tower_shooting

Whitman (sniping people from a tower) and the Dallas police shooter (targeted people he knew would be armed) are the only 2 mass shooters out of the scores we’ve had that deployed any real level of skill in their attacks. They are exceptions. Both had military training. All the rest were just angry fucktards with a gun that were able to kill a lot of people easily. Because that’s what guns let you do.

*both were Texans too. Yee-haw amirite.

[956 Worldwide 34412]

@NotActuallyALonghorn, I am just quoting the below from your long post:

Quote

Universal Background Checks. There is no reason why we shouldn't have them, and most law abiding gun owners won't sell a firearm in a face to face transaction to someone who they believe to be a prohibited person. At the same time, the ATF has been digitizing records of FFL transactions at a pace that is alarming to gun rights proponents. There is a middle ground in which a person who wishes to purchase a gun from another private individual can submit all their information to the ATF and have themselves cleared through the NICS background check System and recieve an alphanumeric code valid for a set number of days that the seller can then submit to the system, and, combined with a state or federally issued ID, verify that that person is qualified to own a firearm and compete the sale. This allays the fears of gun rights proponents that the federal government is creating an illegal registry and allows gun owners to sell their firearms at fair market value to other potential gun owners without having to worry about whether or not they are a prohibited person. It doesn't create a paper trail, but it is better than the system we have and is the best shot we have at actually getting universal background checks.

All this rubbish about digital ATF records and gun rights “fears” gets to the heart of the matter.  The gun lobby and their paranoid clientele invented something to get people angry about, then demanded that any background check legislation address their concerns—- concerns over something that doesn’t exist, is illegal, and was specifically prohibited by Manchin-Toomey.  (Also— the bill had a bipartisan sponsor and the D sponsor is the most conservative D in the Senate!) 

Perfectly illustrative of the debate— demands to compromise to allay conspiracy theory fears.  
 

For those interested, the truth about the ATF digital records:

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/atf-non-searchable-databases/ 

 

 

[Jshep34 2303]

No it wouldn't. I'm all about people having a right to own a firearm for self defense, sport shooting, and hunting. I just don't understand why people need 10 rifles, 8 pistols and hundreds rounds of ammo for each. No 18 year old should be able to purchase what the shooter did.

[Hmbre97 6297]

14 minutes ago, ohchaucer said:

Serious nomenclature question: does “handgun” only mean pistols with clips vs revolvers (and revolvers are their own category of gun)? And if so, are CHL licenses for both types of guns? I’ve see a few posters distinguish between handgun and revolver and I always assumed they were all in the same category.

I’ll hang up and listen.

The term handgun refers to both. And for CHL, that is going to be state specific. You'd have to be more specific.

Texas still has a LTC (formerly CHL) but it's not required anymore if you want to open or conceal carry handguns. 

 

I won't speak for anyone else but in my comments, I called out specifically that I would like to see just semi-auto handguns put under stricter measures just due to load capacity, fire rate and ease of reloading via magazine. Same reason why most people want more restrictions on AR platform guns and not necessarily bolt-action single fire style weapons.

Edited May 28, 2022 by Hmbre97