At least 30 shot in Texas

[jarnon]

Walmart ends all handgun ammunition sales and asks customers not to carry guns into stores

The El Paso shooting hit close to home.

I don't think the El Paso shooter would abide by that request. So rather than having 10 or more concealed carrying folks (or at least the possibility), Walmart is choosing to let all the other crazies know "We're still a nice soft target".

I don't know how many, if any, concealed carrying folks were at the Walmart that day, but I do suspect at the local Walmart near me, at any given time there are a good number of them.

The headline is inaccurate. Concealed carry customers are still welcome.

[silverscreenselect]

Some more Texas culture:

Texas man pulls gun on Popeyes employees over chicken sandwiches, police say

[BackInTex]

Some more Texas culture:

Texas man pulls gun on Popeyes employees over chicken sandwiches, police say

I guarantee those folks have more in common with you than me.

[tlynn78]

Some more Texas culture:

Texas man pulls gun on Popeyes employees over chicken sandwiches, police say

I guarantee those folks have more in common with you than me.

Yup. Maybe they wouldn't take his coupons.

[flockofseagulls104]

Hey, let's totally ignore Chicago just like we ignored SPLC when we didn't have an answer. We'll just move on to the next batphone subject. That way we don't have to admit we don't have a clue. Tried and true debate strategy used by all weasels in politics and the media.

[Beebs52]

Sss, could you possibly come up with something wittier in re Texas culture, rather than the obvious bait job you're doing? It almost makes me want to say fuck you and your carpetbagger self soiling the lovely state of Georgia. But I won't, cause it's a waste of fuckyous.

[silverscreenselect]

It almost makes me want to say fuck you and your carpetbagger self soiling the lovely state of Georgia.

Actually, I came from even farther south. I'm a native Floridian (Orlando pre-Disney).

[Beebs52]

It almost makes me want to say fuck you and your carpetbagger self soiling the lovely state of Georgia.

Actually, I came from even farther south. I'm a native Floridian (Orlando pre-Disney).

Nothing to brag about. Lotta swamp. People.

[silverscreenselect]

That way we don't have to admit we don't have a clue.

Well, based on your posts, you clearly don't have a clue. But Democrats have proposed numerous bills to strengthen gun control laws, all of which go nowhere in the Republican Senate. Among Democratic proposals that get knocked out are the elimination of private sale loopholes to avoid background checks. And, what do you know:

Texas gunman purchased weapon in private sale, which doesn't require background check

[BackInTex]

That way we don't have to admit we don't have a clue.

Well, based on your posts, you clearly don't have a clue. But Democrats have proposed numerous bills to strengthen gun control laws, all of which go nowhere in the Republican Senate. Among Democratic proposals that get knocked out are the elimination of private sale loopholes to avoid background checks. And, what do you know:

Texas gunman purchased weapon in private sale, which doesn't require background check

Requiring background checks for private sale will have the same effect as requiring tax stamps for the sale of drugs. Those who can't pass a background check will find someone to sell them a gun, just like those who want illegal drugs will find someone to sell to them. Or someone who wants an illegal medical procedure will find someone to take them somewhere it may be legal, thus circumventing the laws. You may have some personal knowledge of one or more of these.

My point being, the only folks who will get background checked are those who will pass background checks. This guy would still have found (or stolen) a gun.

[Bob Juch]

That way we don't have to admit we don't have a clue.

Well, based on your posts, you clearly don't have a clue. But Democrats have proposed numerous bills to strengthen gun control laws, all of which go nowhere in the Republican Senate. Among Democratic proposals that get knocked out are the elimination of private sale loopholes to avoid background checks. And, what do you know:

Texas gunman purchased weapon in private sale, which doesn't require background check

Requiring background checks for private sale will have the same effect as requiring tax stamps for the sale of drugs. Those who can't pass a background check will find someone to sell them a gun, just like those who want illegal drugs will find someone to sell to them. Or someone who wants an illegal medical procedure will find someone to take them somewhere it may be legal, thus circumventing the laws. You may have some personal knowledge of one or more of these.

My point being, the only folks who will get background checked are those who will pass background checks. This guy would still have found (or stolen) a gun.

So you're saying since people will break laws, we shouldn't have any?

[Bob78164]

That way we don't have to admit we don't have a clue.

Well, based on your posts, you clearly don't have a clue. But Democrats have proposed numerous bills to strengthen gun control laws, all of which go nowhere in the Republican Senate. Among Democratic proposals that get knocked out are the elimination of private sale loopholes to avoid background checks. And, what do you know:

Texas gunman purchased weapon in private sale, which doesn't require background check

Requiring background checks for private sale will have the same effect as requiring tax stamps for the sale of drugs. Those who can't pass a background check will find someone to sell them a gun, just like those who want illegal drugs will find someone to sell to them. Or someone who wants an illegal medical procedure will find someone to take them somewhere it may be legal, thus circumventing the laws. You may have some personal knowledge of one or more of these.

My point being, the only folks who will get background checked are those who will pass background checks. This guy would still have found (or stolen) a gun.

I thought you believed in supply and demand. Requiring background checks will make guns rarer for people who could not pass a background check because fewer people will be willing to sell to them. And that will make them more expensive for those people, which means fewer of them will end up with guns. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

My point being, the only folks who will get background checked are those who will pass background checks. This guy would still have found (or stolen) a gun.

It's amazing how every criminal possesses superhuman abilities to circumvent any laws designed to keep guns out of his hands.

[silverscreenselect]

This guy would still have found (or stolen) a gun.

So you're saying since people will break laws, we shouldn't have any?

The laws against murder sure didn't stop this guy.

[Beebs52]

Sorta like tax revenue being lost on marijuana cause illegal shit is cheaper. Gotcha

[BackInTex]

This guy would still have found (or stolen) a gun.

So you're saying since people will break laws, we shouldn't have any?

The laws against murder sure didn't stop this guy.

But I'm sure he'd obey the law regarding background checks.

[BackInTex]

So you're saying since people will break laws, we shouldn't have any?

No. But I'm not for increasing laws that will only put the burden to comply on law abiding citizens, especially when they are exercising a constitutional right and that burden provides useless government intervention.

Having a law against murder or theft does not burden me. Does it burden you?

[Bob78164]

So you're saying since people will break laws, we shouldn't have any?

The laws against murder sure didn't stop this guy.

But I'm sure he'd obey the law regarding background checks.

You do realize that it's the seller of the gun, not the intended purchaser, who has to comply with a background-check law. --Bob

[Bob Juch]

So you're saying since people will break laws, we shouldn't have any?

No. But I'm not for increasing laws that will only put the burden to comply on law abiding citizens, especially when they are exercising a constitutional right and that burden provides useless government intervention.

Having a law against murder or theft does not burden me. Does it burden you?

Having a background check done on someone I'm selling a gun to wouldn't burden me unduly. I know I'd feel terrible if someone I sold to used it to murder someone.

[BackInTex]

The laws against murder sure didn't stop this guy.

But I'm sure he'd obey the law regarding background checks.

You do realize that it's the seller of the gun, not the intended purchaser, who has to comply with a background-check law. --Bob

Yes I do. But I also realize that it will be easier to provide false documents to a novice who might be doing their first and only background check. It also puts a huge burden and liability on someone who just wants to sell something they rightfully and legally own. And it won't have an effect on what is driving the call for change, shootings.

[SportsFan68]

So you're saying since people will break laws, we shouldn't have any?

No. But I'm not for increasing laws that will only put the burden to comply on law abiding citizens, especially when they are exercising a constitutional right and that burden provides useless government intervention.

Having a law against murder or theft does not burden me. Does it burden you?

SteelersFan will disagree that it's a burden for him to pass a background check every time he buys a firearm. He's proud of the fact that it's never a problem. And so what if it sometimes adds a day or two to the sale? I can't imagine a situation where an extra day or two in a firearms purchase would create a burden.

[SportsFan68]

But I'm sure he'd obey the law regarding background checks.

You do realize that it's the seller of the gun, not the intended purchaser, who has to comply with a background-check law. --Bob

Yes I do. But I also realize that it will be easier to provide false documents to a novice who might be doing their first and only background check. It also puts a huge burden and liability on someone who just wants to sell something they rightfully and legally own. And it won't have an effect on what is driving the call for change, shootings.

Again, SteelersFan will disagree with this. He's bought and sold dozens of firearms since we've been married. We currently own about a dozen. I don't consider anything BiT's brought up a burden, but if it is, I'd rather have somebody shoulder some burden if it would prevent these horrific mass shootings.

As for having an effect on shootings, I think it probably does. But if it doesn't, that's why we support ERPO (red flag) laws.

Legislators aren't bringing this stuff up because they decided to put a burden on lawful firearms owners. They're bringing it up because whatever we're doing isn't working, and what's worse, it seems to be children who are bearing the brunt of it.

[Bob78164]

You do realize that it's the seller of the gun, not the intended purchaser, who has to comply with a background-check law. --Bob

Yes I do. But I also realize that it will be easier to provide false documents to a novice who might be doing their first and only background check. It also puts a huge burden and liability on someone who just wants to sell something they rightfully and legally own. And it won't have an effect on what is driving the call for change, shootings.

Again, SteelersFan will disagree with this. He's bought and sold dozens of firearms since we've been married. We currently own about a dozen. I don't consider anything BiT's brought up a burden, but if it is, I'd rather have somebody shoulder some burden if it would prevent these horrific mass shootings.

As for having an effect on shootings, I think it probably does. But if it doesn't, that's why we support ERPO (red flag) laws.

Legislators aren't bringing this stuff up because they decided to put a burden on lawful firearms owners. They're bringing it up because whatever we're doing isn't working, and what's worse, it seems to be children who are bearing the brunt of it.

The standard BiT is attempting to apply is perfection. It MIGHT be possible for someone to fool someone with fake documents, so there's no point to even trying to require background checks. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

The standard BiT is attempting to apply is perfection. It MIGHT be possible for someone to fool someone with fake documents, so there's no point to even trying to require background checks. --Bob

It's interesting that right wingers don't apply nearly the same stringent standards when concocting one restriction after another on voting rights in an effort to "deter" some hypothetical voter fraud.

[Bob78164]

The standard BiT is attempting to apply is perfection. It MIGHT be possible for someone to fool someone with fake documents, so there's no point to even trying to require background checks. --Bob

It's interesting that right wingers don't apply nearly the same stringent standards when concocting one restriction after another on voting rights in an effort to "deter" some hypothetical voter fraud.

But you see, gun ownership involves sacred Second Amendment rights that must never be burdened, much less infringed. Voting rights are nowhere near as important. --Bob