Current Gun Laws Should Have Made It Impossible for Texas Shooter to Buy Gun

The Daily Signal ^ | November 06, 2017 | Amy Swearer

[detective]

On the morning of Sunday, Nov. 5, Devin Patrick Kelley opened fire on the congregants of First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas. The attack killed 26 people, including a pregnant woman and a number of children.

A man living nearby heard the shots, grabbed his own firearm, and pursued Kelley. Kelley was found dead in his truck 8 miles away from the scene, and it is not clear whether he or his pursuer fired the fatal shot.

As with every highly publicized mass casualty shooting, the news was followed by immediate calls for legislators to “do something.” Too often, these calls are made with limited knowledge of existing gun restrictions, of constitutional jurisprudence, and the facts of the shooting itself.

[detective]

This shooting was preventable under existing state and federal statutes. Sunday’s reign of terror should never have happened.

What the laws constantly proposed by Democrats and the media would do is confiscate the guns from the neighbors. The shooter would have been able to keep going until police arrived in say a half hour. More people would have been killed and the killer would have gotten away.

[metmom]

Which goes go show that gun laws don’t work.

Just like laws against any criminal behavior don’t stop the behavior.

It just gives the authorities some teeth to prosecute with.

[Sopater]

This shooting was preventable under existing state and federal statutes.

Actually, no criminal shooting is "preventable" with any existing or proposed state and federal statutes. That's why it does not make sense to further infringe on the natural rights of good, law abiding citizens to obtain guns for their own defense.

[unixfox]

In other words, EPIC FAIL BY GOVERNMENT.

Pathetic.

[OttawaFreeper]

Thomas Hamilton, the perpetrator of the Dunblane, Scotland school shooting in 1996, was expelled from his gun club and local junior police officers strongly recommended that his firearms permits be revoked and his gun collection confiscated due to his erratic behaviour. He had also been fired as a Scoutmaster as it was alleged that he molested boys in his troops. Yet he was allowed to keep his firearms until he committed that horrible act.

It is now theorized that he was a supplier of kiddie porn to corrupt senior law enforcement officers in on such things and that is a likely reason why the local officers’ recommendation was ignored.

[Pollster1]

That’s the problem with gun laws. You can’t make those who follow the law safer by disarming people who follow the law. You make decent people safe by allowing them to defend themselves against those who choose to commit crime.

[usconservative]

This shooting was preventable under existing state and federal statutes.

The absurdity of this statement assumes criminals obey laws. Clearly they don't thus the term "criminals."

[hadaclueonce]

Fire the head of US Air Force now.
Someone is responsible.
Start at the top and it will not happen again.

[ctdonath2]

Yes, the current gun laws should have.
Except that they relied on full compliance data reporting, which didn’t happen.
Systems that don’t address failures don’t fail safely. It failed, people died - and the Left’s solution is to further erode the system’s ability to handle failure by further disarming people who could & did actually intervene.

[iontheball]

The lack of knowledge about courts martial is evident in the reporting. No one seems to report whether the subject was tried by special or general court martial. The maximum sentence under special court martial is 6 months confinement, 6 months forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a bad conduct discharge. If tried by General Court martial the punishment would exceed one year confinement, but it appears his actual sentence did not exceed one year so the crime would not constitute a felony. However Federal law specifically addresses firearms and domestic violence crimes, prohibiting someone convicted of such crimes from possessing a firearm. So, it appears the Air Force dropped the ball and failed to report his domestic violation conviction to the national firearms data base.

[Robert357]

Current gun laws are not enforced. Current gun laws only stop honest people. Criminals are into violating any and all laws that get in their way.

Can people not understand these basics?

I swear that liberals think that the purpose of passing laws is to show you care and not to prevent crime.

[kiryandil]

I don't understand why no one is looking at the family.

It's common knowledge that people convicted of domestic violence can't own/possess firearms.

You can't tell me they didn't know.

[kiryandil]

I don't understand why no one is looking at the family.

It's common knowledge that people convicted of domestic violence can't own/possess firearms.

You can't tell me they didn't know.

[usconservative]

The air force dropped the ball in reporting his court martial and dishonorable discharge (for abusing his wife) so that he'd be flagged on a background check as convicted FELON and therefore INELIGIBLE to purchase the weapons he did. The laws to stop him from purchasing the weapon he used already existed and weren't properly followed.

No new law in the world could've prevented this.

[kiryandil]

The air force dropped the ball in reporting his court martial and dishonorable discharge (for abusing his wife) so that he'd be flagged on a background check as convicted FELON and therefore INELIGIBLE to purchase the weapons he did. The laws to stop him from purchasing the weapon he used already existed and weren't properly followed.

Correct.

What I'm saying is that his parents knew he was breaking the law.

I think they have culpability in this.

[Sopater]

I don't understand why no one is looking at the family.
Families tend to protect each other and usually try to deal with things among themselves without going to outside parties unless it becomes necessary.

[detective]

What I should have said was that if current laws had been enforced the shooter would not have been able to purchase the gun legally.

Of course he could have made an illegal purchase.

My point was that the gun laws proposed would have had no effect on the shooter.

They would have stopped the neighbor from being able to prevent more killing. The gun laws proposed would have prevented the neighbor from owning a gun.

They would have caused more people to be killed.

[usconservative]

It's hard to disagree with your point: If I know one of my own sons is committing a felony, do I have a legal responsibility to report them?

Do I have a moral responsibility, especially if I'm certain someone's life may be in danger?

I can only answer these questions for myself, in both cases I'd say YES, especially if I'm certain someone's life may be in danger.

Now, if I only suspect someone's life may be in danger do I have that same responsibility? That's a tough one. People get angry all the time and wish someone else ill will. They also "get over it" and their more rational side prevails and nothing happens. Do we destroy people's lives by turning them in for "venting" and simply wishing someone ill-will?

Not a rat hole I want to go down.

I can tell you that Adam Lanza (the Sandy Hook shooter in Newtown, CT) appeared to display all the warning signs and his own mother knew he was a danger, yet failed to lock up her own weapons to prevent him for accessing them. Should she have been held liable? I said yes then and my answer is an unequivocal yes now.

Still, that case proved all the gun laws in the world wasn't going to stop what happened at Sandy Hook. The problem isn't the weapons despite what liberals want to believe, the problem is evil exists in this world and good people should by all Constitutional and God given rights be able to defend themselves from it.

it's kinda like this cartoon:

And the above is exactly why we have the Second Amendment. A point which is routinely and consistently lost on liberals.

[usconservative]

My point was that the gun laws proposed would have had no effect on the shooter. They would have stopped the neighbor from being able to prevent more killing. The gun laws proposed would have prevented the neighbor from owning a gun. They would have caused more people to be killed.

Absolutely spot-on.