He still requires a background check, but not a concealed carry. Which means he could have the gun(not shipped to his house)but not have the ability to carry it outside his property.
Yeah, online firearms purchases have to be shipped to a licensed dealer, who then has to perform a background check. He couldn't have gotten it legally
I'm not living in the US so I can't say much about this but imagine there were no guns at all, he would have decided to burn the school, make a bomb, bring something else to the school. I think the problem is the individual and whatever mental problems they had
He very easily could have but you don’t see much of that happening because these people have such easy access to these weapons. They don’t need to get creative, they just need to go to the store and buy enough guns and bullets to kill innocent people in seconds flat
And god help you if you say that to an American - they're all like, 'but MY guns'. They live in a fantasy land where they believe they're going to bust out their guns like an action hero at the next shooting - 'MURICA!!!
Number one the deterrent factor. If armed people aren't a deterrent for the attacker then why don't they attack police stations? Number two if they did attack police stations think the kill count would be 17? I'm not saying make every teacher carry but let any teacher that is willing to go through the same training as police carry. I would also go for bullet proof shields in classrooms. Imagine if a school burned down and all we did was try to ban flammable substances because they can cause a fire instead of doing fire drills and putting in fire extinguishers that's what we are doing with school killings. You will not stop people from killing other people with laws that's not how it works. If it did the the shooter would see a gun free zone sign and turn around and go home.
I'm not living in the US but where I'm living if we had guns the situation will not be what it is now. We can't do anything because only the government has guns, no freedom at all. Americans don't appreciate what they have
The best way is to talk to them and help them understand. Giving the police and the government all the power will end badly. People think everything will remain the same forever, but time changes everything, US is a free country now but anything can change that. People need guns to protect themselves against the government mostly and not other people. Governments can turn bad at any time, just remember that people
Downvoting me? You're so full of shit. You know the shooter got the guns illegally and then you want more laws preventing people from buying guns. Are you serious? Are you a moron? How come the fucking government couldn't stop this one? Or the previous one? Or the one before that. Pull your heads out of your assess
Why don't people in the US have a referendum on guns, maybe the majority want to ban them, and we will see what happens. It will be a great experiment in our lifetime
You are reading the wrong part, come up a little bit, I asked a real substantial question and we are talking about it. These comments at the end are just for the people who downvoted me I am just having fun with them
Are you fucking 5 ? You can't handle a couple of downvotes while acting like the person giving them to you is somehow worse ? At least they're not the one throwing a fucking tantrum
All of this aside I like to talk about my ideas, if I hate some celebrity I say fuck them, I'm not five so I don't think saying fuck means I am angry or anything, I just use any words that I like
Why don't people in the US have a referendum on guns, maybe the majority want to ban them, and we will see what happens. It will be a great experiment in our lifetime
Only the fully automatic swimming pools with the high-capacity magazines and advanced targeting options.
The standard pools that you can carry concealed in a purse aren’t that dangerous.
I don't think anti-gun people understand the freedom guns bring for an individual, it's a way to protect yourself, the most valuable thing in the world for a person is his or her life and the lives of their family and friends. Guns allow you to protect yourself
Yes, that's why you never hear about shoot outs or violence between gang members. If someone wants to go after someone else, knowing they are armed too is only going to make them want an even more effective weapon.
Shoot outs are a rarity. Gangsters prefer drive-bys, ambushes, back stabbings, and whatever else leaves as little chance of facing resistance as possible.
Nevermind that it'd be a lot harder for them to menace decent folk who are able to meet lead with lead. That alone would deter more crimes than the police ever could.
As for "more effective" weapons, gangsters always prefer cheap and/or flashy. Most of them have records, or use the black market to purchase smuggled or stolen weapons.
I really don't want to participate too much in this whole gun argument, I just wanted to throw in that most shooters prepare to die when planning their shooting, so I don't think it would change anything for them if everyone could possibly be armed.
Just because everyone owns a gun doesn’t mean everyone has the gun on them at all times, so the deterrent factor doesn’t ring true for me.
It’s might not be legal anyway, depending on state. The Supreme Court has never interpreted the 2nd amendment as giving citizens the right to carry a gun in public, only own one, and even that was decided only 10 years ago after 130 years of rulings stating that individuals didn’t have a direct right to even own a gun unless they were participants in a state militia or something similar.
But everone COULD be packing. That is where the deterrence factor comes in. Those state restrictions on a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT are part of the problem. They only create soft targets.
Shooters love soft targets because they cannot fight back, allowing them to inflict even more devastation with ease. Everyone carrying means that ANYONE could IMMEDIATELY stop the shooter, saving lives and denying them infamy.
And I know public carry is tricky business, but I have never heard of the founders wanting to keep arms restricted to regulated militias. That goes against both the era, because the average person needed weapons to provide for themselves, but also the intention of deterring tyranny. Keeping it restricted to regulated militias only gives the feds first strike capability, where they could target the regulated militia officers and armories to decapitate and disarm resistance before it can even start, like the British tried to.
It says it right in the text. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..” States rights are as important as Fedral.
“Everyone might be carrying” isn’t really a deterrent for anyone especially homocidal people; even if some people in a crowd are armed it’s a lot easier to shoot a group than an individual. Police train for it and their hit rate is still really low.
As for the era, the founding fathers lived in a time when the army had the same weapons as the people. The ones you use to hunt and defend yourself against other individuals. The military today does not in any way resemble what they knew. The military has weapons designed to fight a force, which is completely inappropriate for citizens to own. Feds don’t need first strike capability. They will win against any force US civilians could ever field.
You've made this comment section a pain to read.
The standard pools that you can carry concealed in a purse aren’t that dangerous.
Nevermind that it'd be a lot harder for them to menace decent folk who are able to meet lead with lead. That alone would deter more crimes than the police ever could.
As for "more effective" weapons, gangsters always prefer cheap and/or flashy. Most of them have records, or use the black market to purchase smuggled or stolen weapons.
It’s might not be legal anyway, depending on state. The Supreme Court has never interpreted the 2nd amendment as giving citizens the right to carry a gun in public, only own one, and even that was decided only 10 years ago after 130 years of rulings stating that individuals didn’t have a direct right to even own a gun unless they were participants in a state militia or something similar.
Shooters love soft targets because they cannot fight back, allowing them to inflict even more devastation with ease. Everyone carrying means that ANYONE could IMMEDIATELY stop the shooter, saving lives and denying them infamy.
And I know public carry is tricky business, but I have never heard of the founders wanting to keep arms restricted to regulated militias. That goes against both the era, because the average person needed weapons to provide for themselves, but also the intention of deterring tyranny. Keeping it restricted to regulated militias only gives the feds first strike capability, where they could target the regulated militia officers and armories to decapitate and disarm resistance before it can even start, like the British tried to.
“Everyone might be carrying” isn’t really a deterrent for anyone especially homocidal people; even if some people in a crowd are armed it’s a lot easier to shoot a group than an individual. Police train for it and their hit rate is still really low.
As for the era, the founding fathers lived in a time when the army had the same weapons as the people. The ones you use to hunt and defend yourself against other individuals. The military today does not in any way resemble what they knew. The military has weapons designed to fight a force, which is completely inappropriate for citizens to own. Feds don’t need first strike capability. They will win against any force US civilians could ever field.