Air Force failed to report Devin Kelley's convictions to the FBI

[Been Jammin]

Thank you. You actually provided the framework of a rule that can be debated. What you said is different than what I stated wasn't actionable. Your statement is actionable.

I could live with your recommendation with a couple of caveats. It would need to be high enough to account for multi-person families owning multiple guns each, say 20+ per household. The database would need to be explicitly restricted from FOIA requests.

Wow. I'm surprised by your response. I expected you to tell me how my idea is not constitutional or was too much of an invasion of privacy.

As to your "20+ guns per household". IMO, it should apply to individuals. If you, your wife, and your father all share a home, you could have 3 times the max number as long as all 3 go through the process to qualify for ownership. (No ownership allowed below the age of 18). Maybe there is a maximum per household.

Like I said, I don't own a gun. But, I don't understand the need for individuals to own more than 10 different guns. I get that someone might be a collector, and might want to own a lot more than that. It seems like there would be a way to register as a collector and get some kind of waiver on the limitation (up to a certain number). Maybe collectors have to prove some type of minimum security/protection that will make it less likely that criminals steal their collection.

I don't know. It all sounds pretty convoluted, but I do think that it is possible to make some changes to the status quo without taking away an individuals right to bear arms and feel safe.

 

[wyomingosualum]

Which showed that your 1 in 300,000,000 was incorrect. You even upped it to 400 in 350,000,000 afterwards. My disagreement was with your 1 figure. That is all.

As for your probability argument, sy did a good job of addressing that with his post. Not much more needs to be added.

And if you think it is "hysteria" that people want to stop the deaths of the innocent children you see in the picture sy shared, I really don't know what else to say to you.

Are you aware that around 37,000 people die annually in traffic accidents each year in the United States? How many innocent lives would be spared if the national speed limit were lowered to 25 MPH?

11,000 firearm homicides occur each year in this country. Another 5,000 are stabbed to death or pushed out of windows or strangled, etc.

Are you suffering from misplaced priorities? If you were really about saving innocent lives, just look at the good you can do if you just refocus your concern on speed limits and maybe DUI.

Maybe if I posted some pictures of innocent people who have been killed in traffic accidents you would change your mind. Seriously, you don’t have any constitutional right to drive at such a high speed where fatalities are more likely to occur.

 

[davidallen]

So, this turd was allowed to buy firearms because the Pentagon didn't do its job, but somehow we need more gun laws to get the job done when we can't get the ones currently on the books correct? Who is going to prison for this blunder?

He fractured his infant son's skull on purpose and beat his wife, but the Air Force can't be bothered to do their job. Awesome.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/0...ederal-database-allowing-him-to-buy-guns.html

Who is it that consistently opposes funding to strengthen the databases existing gun control relies on? Will take my answer off the air....

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

Why? What is the issue with limiting the number of guns an individual can own at one time? Or, requiring an individual to be licensed to own more than a particular number of guns. We already have a system in place where an individual has to jump through certain hoops to be able to concealed carry. What would be wrong with implementing a similar system if you want to legally own more than 10 guns, and a more rigorous system to own more than 25?

I think this is an interesting idea but the number of people that own more than 25 or even 10 guns would be very very low in my opinion. What would it accomplish? Removing 10,000 guns from America? 20,000? 1,000,000?
A mass murderer certainly doesn't need 10 guns.
I guess I don't see the impact.

Also, I'm not registering my guns. Period. That would be a stumbling block for many law abiding gun owning citizens.

 

[CowboyJD]

I can live with the first 2 items if you can make it where private sellers can use the system easily.

Beyond that, 'find a way to lower the overall number of guns' isn't actionable. Nor is anything on mental health, without violating any tenant of individual privacy. Unless of course you want to sign up to a system where every medical record, employment review, or any other type of evaluation of you is stored online in a government database for instant mental analysis at any time.

If it's a mental health problem, and nothing on mental health is actionable without violating any tenant of individual privacy...what's the solution to the primary issue in gun violence (mental health, not guns)?

This is a question...not a statement disguised as a question. I don't know.

 

[Medic007]

Who is it that consistently opposes funding to strengthen the databases existing gun control relies on? Will take my answer off the air....

Well of course, increasing funding for the databases will certainly do a lot of good in cases where there was a failure to submit the required data...

 

[Been Jammin]

I think this is an interesting idea but the number of people that own more than 25 or even 10 guns would be very very low in my opinion. What would it accomplish? Removing 10,000 guns from America? 20,000? 1,000,000?
A mass murderer certainly doesn't need 10 guns.
I guess I don't see the impact.

Also, I'm not registering my guns. Period. That would be a stumbling block for many law abiding gun owning citizens.

I don't have all the answers. I just proposed a starting point for getting the discussion going. IMO, that's a lot better than "There is nothing we can do to fix this issue" or "Now is not the time to discuss gun control".

 

[aix_xpert]

Wow. I'm surprised by your response. I expected you to tell me how my idea is not constitutional or was too much of an invasion of privacy.

As to your "20+ guns per household". IMO, it should apply to individuals. If you, your wife, and your father all share a home, you could have 3 times the max number as long as all 3 go through the process to qualify for ownership. (No ownership allowed below the age of 18). Maybe there is a maximum per household.

Like I said, I don't own a gun. But, I don't understand the need for individuals to own more than 10 different guns. I get that someone might be a collector, and might want to own a lot more than that. It seems like there would be a way to register as a collector and get some kind of waiver on the limitation (up to a certain number). Maybe collectors have to prove some type of minimum security/protection that will make it less likely that criminals steal their collection.

I don't know. It all sounds pretty convoluted, but I do think that it is possible to make some changes to the status quo without taking away an individuals right to bear arms and feel safe.

10 guns really isn't that many, particularly if you hunt. If you own a couple of handguns, you may have a 4/10 shotgun, a 12 gauge shotgun, a .22 rifle, a .40 or .45 cal rifle, and maybe an AR for target/range fun. That's 8 guns all with different purposes. Any duplicates or additional guns and you'd be over the limit and not even be considered a gun nut. At least not in the south.

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

I don't have all the answers. I just proposed a starting point for getting the discussion going. IMO, that's a lot better than "There is nothing we can do to fix this issue" or "Now is not the time to discuss gun control".

What if there isn't a fix?

 

[aix_xpert]

If it's a mental health problem, and nothing on mental health is actionable without violating any tenant of individual privacy...what's the solution to the primary issue in gun violence (mental health, not guns)?

This is a question...not a statement disguised as a question. I don't know.

I don't believe there is a solution without violating the tenants that give us freedom. That's why I pray for the victims and move along. Unfortunately, there are consequences of living in a free society, and that means that occasionally evil or messed up people will do bad things.

 

[Been Jammin]

What if there isn't a fix?

Well, if we don't try, we will never know. Theoretically, as these things keep happening, we will eventually reach a breaking point where someone will at least have a legitimate discussion about it. Either that, or some Congressman's/President's son/daughter will be an innocent victim, then it will suddenly be time to talk about gun control.

 

[Medic007]

Well, if we don't try, we will never know. Theoretically, as these things keep happening, we will eventually reach a breaking point where someone will at least have a legitimate discussion about it.

Are you willing to give up your 4th Amendment rights? Some of the things proposed on this board would probably necessitate that in order to have effective enforcement. If there is a maximum number of guns that can be owned, the government would need to be able to show up to your residence and search it to confirm you don't own more than you're legally allowed. Otherwise, that's just feel good fluff law with no teeth.

 

[Been Jammin]

Are you willing to give up your 4th Amendment rights? Some of the things proposed on this board would probably necessitate that in order to have effective enforcement. If there is a maximum number of guns that can be owned, the government would need to be able to show up to your residence and search it to confirm you don't own more than you're legally allowed. Otherwise, that's just feel good fluff law with no teeth.

Well, as I said, I don't own a gun, and I don't have all the answers. So, my response to your questions is a big shoulder shrug (which could be interpreted either as "I don't care" or "I don't know", or some of both).

 

[Medic007]

Well, as I said, I don't own a gun, and I don't have all the answers. So, my response to your questions is a big shoulder shrug (which could be interpreted either as "I don't care" or "I don't know", or some of both).

Fair enough. I do own guns and I have no interest in forfeiting any of my rights to a government run by special interests and sleazy ass politicians like Obama and Trump. So, it isn't that I'm not willing to have a dialogue, I'm just not willing to have one regarding anything that violates my rights because the answer will always be no.

I'm glad Oklahoma has concealed carry. I wouldn't live in a state that doesn't. I know the only person that I can count on to protect me and my family in any given moment is me and my family. That's why I'm always aware and prepared. No, I'm not a prepper or an anti government kook. I don't go anywhere without a firearm. Neither does my wife. Both of my children are well versed in firearms. I don't expect to ever have to use mine, but if that unfortunate situation happens, I'm ready to deal with it.

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

Well, if we don't try, we will never know. Theoretically, as these things keep happening, we will eventually reach a breaking point where someone will at least have a legitimate discussion about it. Either that, or some Congressman's/President's son/daughter will be an innocent victim, then it will suddenly be time to talk about gun control.

No I mean what if there actually isn’t a fix?

 

[Been Jammin]

I just came across this. Seems like it belongs here.

 

[Been Jammin]

I'm glad Oklahoma has concealed carry. I wouldn't live in a state that doesn't. I know the only person that I can count on to protect me and my family in any given moment is me and my family. That's why I'm always aware and prepared.

-Has CC always been legal in Oklahoma?
-Before it was legal, did you ever CC?

 

[Been Jammin]

No I mean what if there actually isn’t a fix?

Asked and answered,your honor.

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

Asked and answered,your honor.

Sigh

 

[Medic007]

-Has CC always been legal in Oklahoma?
-Before it was legal, did you ever CC?

No
Yes

 

[Been Jammin]

No
Yes

So, when they implemented legal CC, and you had to get your CC license, did you feel like your constitutional rights or privacy were/was being violated?

 

[CowboyJD]

I don't believe there is a solution without violating the tenants that give us freedom. That's why I pray for the victims and move along. Unfortunately, there are consequences of living in a free society, and that means that occasionally evil or messed up people will do bad things.

Thanks for being up front about it.

I don't know that I agree.

I don't know that I don't though.

 

[Medic007]

So, when they implemented legal CC, and you had to get your CC license, did you feel like your constitutional rights or privacy were/was being violated?

No, I felt they were being restored.

 

[Been Jammin]

No, I felt they were being restored.

So, you had to go through some red tape to do something you were already doing, and now your name is in a government database. Somewhat similar to if it became a requirement for gun owners to register their guns.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Who is it that consistently opposes funding to strengthen the databases existing gun control relies on? Will take my answer off the air....

Would you or someone else please explain to me the purpose of a data base. How would a data base prevent mass shootings? I guess I’m dense but I don’t understand how a data base prevents a lunatic from killing people with a gun. His gun(s) are in a data base, now what?

 

[Ponca Dan]

I understand and appreciate on an intellectual level analyzing a meta data-driven approach. I encourage it. I also employ compassion and love for Brooke (left - 5), Emily (7 - right) who had their little guts sprayed across a church. Mommy was killed, too (far left).

It seems you're saying the numbers don't justify a change in the status quo. How many would? If your daughter was shot in the head while grocery shopping by a lunatic with an AR would you feel the same way?

Candidly, I'm so disgusted at:

1. The idea of giving a crazy idiot the power of life or instant death over dozens of good people,
2. The constant deception of the NRA crowd, and
3. the repeated, consistent, tragedies drawing, "Not now/ nothing's really wrong here/ it was a liberal // let's not do anything// it's a hoax" messaging,

that I've gone full circle to the point I'm exhausted at the constant defense of the mass shootings. Apathy + criticism of every solution + lying to prevent opinions from forming = functionally defending it.

Those percentages look insignificant. So does the number of Americans killed by radical islamic terrorism in the U.S. over the last two decades. So do the number of people killed by benzene poisoning, or the number of roofs that have collapsed and killed people. But we all think we should actively defeat the terrorists, want strict benzene regulations, and want codes to keep roofs from collapsing. Second, but the numbers aren't insignificant, particularly compared with the numbers from other contemporary western democracies. Third, I can't see much of a down side to fixing it. The dumbass had a killing machine. I don't think dumbasses should have easy access to killing machines. You do, I guess. Right? You just can't stand for dumbasses to lose their access to killing machines. No civilian on this board has spent more time hunting and shooting than me, and I can tell in .000012 seconds that an AR 15 is meant to kill people as efficiently and swiftly as possible.

Sys, you called it a “constant defense of mass shootings.” Do you really believe that’s what people are doing, defending mass shootings? By all appearances you are more intelligent than that. No one is defending mass shootings. Let me repeat so you can’t possibly misunderstand: no one is defending mass shootings. They (we) are defending a sacred liberty that is part of our most sacred tradition. The people arguing in defense of liberty are just as appalled by mass shootings as you are. We just don’t see an attack on our freedom as a legitimate solution. You seem to be missing the point. You are better than that. You would deserve much more respect on this board if you would argue the point and not attempt to deflect the argument into a “bad guys vs good guys” diatribe.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

Q

Sys, you called it a “constant defense of mass shootings.” Do you really believe that’s what people are doing, defending mass shootings? By all appearances you are more intelligent than that. No one is defending mass shootings. Let me repeat so you can’t possibly misunderstand: no one is defending mass shootings. They (we) are defending a sacred liberty that is part of our most sacred tradition. The people arguing in defense of liberty are just as appalled by mass shootings as you are. We just don’t see an attack on our freedom as a legitimate solution. You seem to be missing the point. You are better than that. You would deserve much more respect on this board if you would argue the point and not attempt to deflect the argument into a “bad guys vs good guys” diatribe.

It's a constant defense of the status quo. It produces the exact same result whether motivated by desire for good reality tv, schadenfreude, doe-eyed pop-constitutional theory, industry profit, plug in whatever stated excuse you want. I don't really care what the subjective reasons are, they are expending energy to perpetuate the status quo of mass shootings. You can't sit there and confront the fact that one western democracy after another with gun control doesn't have this issue and ignore it. That's stupid. It's a function of common sense.

And these other countries do it all different kinds of ways. One of them has rifles everywhere, but everyone has mandatory gun training. There's not much shit going down because everyone is armed, but they are screened and keep track of who does what. You don't see wackos spraying little girls guts across a church and then people saying, "No, don't change our approach to preventing that. Don't try."

It has been a good guy vs bad guy diatribe from your side for years. Have you heard what the NRA or Dana Loesch says? After years of "Liberals want to disarm the country so government can take over" messaging, now you lose respect if someone makes it good guy vs. bad guy. Alrighty then.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Q


It's a constant defense of the status quo. It produces the exact same result whether motivated by desire for good reality tv, schadenfreude, doe-eyed pop-constitutional theory, industry profit, plug in whatever stated excuse you want. I don't really care what the subjective reasons are, they are expending energy to perpetuate the status quo of mass shootings. You can't sit there and confront the fact that one western democracy after another with gun control doesn't have this issue and ignore it. That's stupid. It's a function of common sense.

And these other countries do it all different kinds of ways. One of them has rifles everywhere, but everyone has mandatory gun training. There's not much shit going down because everyone is armed, but they are screened and keep track of who does what. You don't see wackos spraying little girls guts across a church and then people saying, "No, don't change our approach to preventing that. Don't try."

It has been a good guy vs bad guy diatribe from your side for years. Have you heard what the NRA or Dana Loesch says? After years of "Liberals want to disarm the country so government can take over" messaging, now you lose respect if someone makes it good guy vs. bad guy. Alrighty then.

Oftentimes I wonder why I try to have a quiet, polite discussion with you. Remarks like this are nothing more than childish emotional drivel. How old are you? Is it that hard to contain yourself without vapid angry outbursts? Aren’t you a lawyer? Do you argue in court? Is this your professional MO? (In spite of it all I can’t help but like you!)

 

[davidallen]

Well of course, increasing funding for the databases will certainly do a lot of good in cases where there was a failure to submit the required data...

Don't be dense... Integrating disparate date sources means "submit" is automagic.

 

[davidallen]

Would you or someone else please explain to me the purpose of a data base. How would a data base prevent mass shootings? I guess I’m dense but I don’t understand how a data base prevents a lunatic from killing people with a gun. His gun(s) are in a data base, now what?

We have law restricting who can purchase firearms which is ineffective because departments are under staffed and technology is obsolete. Just like certain lobby groups want it to be...

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

Oftentimes I wonder why I try to have a quiet, polite discussion with you. Remarks like this are nothing more than childish emotional drivel. How old are you? Is it that hard to contain yourself without vapid angry outbursts? Aren’t you a lawyer? Do you argue in court? Is this your professional MO? (In spite of it all I can’t help but like you!)

Dan, I'm starting to get a Ken M vibe. I'm still kind of hung up on the making it a good vs. bad guy thing. Let's rise above the personal stuff you started above with me and address your point. Can you address perspectives that are not yours? I'm still hung up on this:

"You would deserve much more respect on this board if you would argue the point and not attempt to deflect the argument into a “bad guys vs good guys” diatribe."

"It has been a good guy vs bad guy diatribe from your side for years. Have you heard what the NRA or Dana Loesch says? After years of "Liberals want to disarm the country so government can take over" messaging, now you lose respect if someone makes it good guy vs. bad guy."

Can you address this?

 

[Ponca Dan]

We have law restricting who can purchase firearms which is ineffective because departments are under staffed and technology is obsolete. Just like certain lobby groups want it to be...

OK, so assume those lobbying groups somehow lose their clout, money pours into the database organizations, they are fully staffed and have all the latest technology. They have become so efficient, and the public has become completely committed to complying with all the dictates demanded of them by the government. The database community has its version of utopia. The government database knows where all 300 million guns are at all times, who owns every gun, and every single gun owner has been thoroughly checked out by government psychiatrists, and have been approved by same. It all is in the database. How does that prevent a mass shooting like the Las Vegas murders? That guy would have passed the “crazy guy” test, the database would have known about all his guns. How would the database have stopped him? I’m not trying to be argumentative here. I truly don’t understand what is the purpose of a national database in stopping mass shootings. The tin foil hat side of me sees massive mega data in the hands of politicians and their muscle men. As a liberal does it not concern you that D. Trump would know where every gun is and he might send his well armed minions out to confiscate the weapons, making the citizenry powerless to stop him from declaring himself dictator for life? I mean for the past year all we’ve been told is he’s the next Hitler. Confiscating all the guns is a very Hitler-like thing. Does that give you no pause? Scares the hell out of me.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Dan, I'm starting to get a Ken M vibe. I'm still kind of hung up on the making it a good vs. bad guy thing. Let's rise above the personal stuff you started above with me and address your point. Can you address perspectives that are not yours? I'm still hung up on this:

"You would deserve much more respect on this board if you would argue the point and not attempt to deflect the argument into a “bad guys vs good guys” diatribe."

"It has been a good guy vs bad guy diatribe from your side for years. Have you heard what the NRA or Dana Loesch says? After years of "Liberals want to disarm the country so government can take over" messaging, now you lose respect if someone makes it good guy vs. bad guy."

Can you address this?

Sys, I haven’t learned how to copy each individual paragraph of a comment and then reply. So bear with me.

I’m not a member of the NRA. I’m not in its database. I am not a recipient of its blast e-mails or any of the scare letters I assume it sends out as part of its requests for donations. Like Been I don’t own a gun. I got all the shooting -with-the-intent -to-kill I ever want in an all expenses paid little police action LBJ sent me to in my youth. I’ll take your word for it people on “my side” have used scurrilous rhetoric against those on your side. But if you will be reasonable you need to address their (our) fears calmly and rationally in place of emotion driven language of contempt you so often use. Their (our) concerns are perfectly legitimate. History is on our side. People like Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Fidel and Che, Pol Pot, Chavez, and many others insisted on the same things you are insisting on. My side has every right to be concerned. Historically people with evil intent have practiced what you want us to practice. Many on my side are concerned that people on your side are after the same thing as those evil historical figures. Many look at the face of George Soros, for example, and see a representation of unmitigated evil. Much like your side sees when they look at DJ Trump. (I’m the nut that sees it in both of them).

I tried unsuccessfully with GL to explain if your side wants to diddle with my liberty it needs to explain in full what it thinks it will accomplish. Throwing out a few ideas and saying “that’s a good start” leaves my side cold. If that’s the start what’s the end. You say your intent is to stop the bloodshed. That’s an honorable goal, one we both share, surprising as that may seem to you. I’m the kook that is not willing to give up my liberty for any reason, no matter how altruistic that reason might be. You are not going to convince me - ever. But most others on here have said they agree with you in principle. But the devil is in the details. What are the details? Full unedited details. Your goal is to stop the chaos. That’s our goal too. You and GL have laid out a generic proposal without any details. What are the details? Your plan is DOA without the details. Doing as GL does and saying the answers can be found, I need to look them up, smacks of deception. One can’t help but believe you and GL don’t know any details of your proposal. You’re angry and lashing out. Emotionally you have decided my side is defending mass murder. I’m sure in your heart you know better. But name calling is not going to win you the prize. Your rhetoric falls flat. You need to present calm rational explanations for every single proposal you make. You need to patiently and calmly answer every question with rational answers. Otherwise our two sides can never be friends. I hope I have addressed that which you asked me to address.

 

[Been Jammin]

How does that prevent a mass shooting like the Las Vegas murders? That guy would have passed the “crazy guy” test, the database would have known about all his guns. How would the database have stopped him?

Just addressing this one particular point. The guy went from owning no guns to stocking up on about 30 of them over a 1 year period. Maybe that would have set off a red flag, that would have caused him to be questioned or put under surveillance. Now, maybe that doesn't lead to prevention of the LV massacre, because he is a convincing liar and a smart dude, but it certainly reduces the chances of him being successful. Maybe knowing the feds are on to him results in him acting more quickly and not waiting for such a prime target, or making a big mistake and getting stopped before he is able to kill himself.

 

[Medic007]

So, you had to go through some red tape to do something you were already doing, and now your name is in a government database. Somewhat similar to if it became a requirement for gun owners to register their guns.

I knew this was coming. Quite a leap from concealed carry to registering guns. I carried when it wasn't legal because I have a right to defend myself. Now I have a legal means to do that. That's wholly different than knowing how many guns I own and what they are being stored in a database somewhere. The only reason anyone would want to know that is so when the time comes that people like GL97 decide I can't use a semi auto for my own defense, they know who owns them. Just like me carrying prior to it being legal, I won't comply with gun registration. Again, now we're back to the 4th Amendment.

How exactly would registering guns have prevented the church from being shot up anyhow? The entire idea is nothing but virtue signaling feel good for now, and a means to violate my rights later. Gun registration will have zero impact on gun crime, including mass shootings. Come on man, you're smarter than that.

 

[Medic007]

Maybe that would have set off a red flag, that would have caused him to be questioned or put under surveillance.

4th Amendment...

Now, maybe that doesn't lead to prevention of the LV massacre, because he is a convincing liar and a smart dude, but it certainly reduces the chances of him being successful.

Do you really think someone planning a mass shooting is going to admit they're planning a mass shooting? How does the feds knowing that he has 30 guns lead to a lower chance of success? Do they follow him everywhere he goes? Maybe randomly search him to make sure he isn't driving around with too many guns? There is nothing logical to your argument. At all.

 

[Medic007]

Just addressing this one particular point. The guy went from owning no guns to stocking up on about 30 of them over a 1 year period. Maybe that would have set off a red flag, that would have caused him to be questioned or put under surveillance. Now, maybe that doesn't lead to prevention of the LV massacre, because he is a convincing liar and a smart dude, but it certainly reduces the chances of him being successful. Maybe knowing the feds are on to him results in him acting more quickly and not waiting for such a prime target, or making a big mistake and getting stopped before he is able to kill himself.

Do you support legalizing marijuana? Serious question.

 

[Been Jammin]

I knew this was coming. Quite a leap from concealed carry to registering guns. I carried when it wasn't legal because I have a right to defend myself. Now I have a legal means to do that. That's wholly different than knowing how many guns I own and what they are being stored in a database somewhere. The only reason anyone would want to know that is so when the time comes that people like GL97 decide I can't use a semi auto for my own defense, they know who owns them. Just like me carrying prior to it being legal, I won't comply with gun registration. Again, now we're back to the 4th Amendment.

Yeah, I knew it was a stretch. I guess my only point is that it sounds like a terrible change to you now, but maybe it would turn out to not be that big a deal in reality.

How exactly would registering guns have prevented the church from being shot up anyhow?

Well, I would think that registration would be accompanied by increased vetting of who the gun is being sold to. Clearly, the seller would want to verify that they are not selling to someone who should not be buying. Maybe it increases the chances that his red flags get picked up before the transaction is made.

Gun registration will have zero impact on gun crime, including mass shootings.

Maybe, maybe not. In reality, we will never know the answer. I don't think it will ever happen. If it does, the stats will be the stats and we won't know what crimes would have been committed had things not changed. I do think that fewer guns in the U.S., and making guns a bit more difficult to acquire, is a lot more likely to decrease gun crime than to increase it.

Come on man, you're smarter than that.

Don't be so sure.

Seriously though. I don't know all the answers, and I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. Mostly, I am just playing devils advocate.

 

[Been Jammin]

Do you support legalizing marijuana? Serious question.

Yes. 100%

 

[Medic007]

Yes. 100%

More than 10,000 people die every year in car crashes that involve an impaired driver, many more than die in mass shootings. You support legalizing another intoxicating substance that will only increase those numbers? Are you really on board with decreasing the senseless deaths of innocent people, or is it more a matter of a political position?