Parkland Kids

Sounds like it's only "easy" if you can actually pass the background check.

Originally posted by Surtur
There was a background check done and he passed. You can certainly say we need to tighten the system.

But we still end up with: what she said was nowhere near a "mild" exaggeration.

And she is not the only student to make strange gun claims. See the "there are restrictions on the 1st amendment, but not the second" comment.

And the other example you gave is a private transaction. That is your "gun show" loophole(has nothing to do with gun shows, but private sales). The problem is I don't know exactly how you stop such transactions from happening. All we could really do is make steeper penalties for people who sell a gun in a private transaction that is later used to shoot someone.

You're scraping the barrel to attack her like the retards who made that nonsense story about her bullying Cruz because he was pro-gun and Cruz being the real victim in all is.

Only it's not very easy, you have to meet all the legal requirements to buy a gun from a store.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Sounds like it's only "easy" if you can actually pass the background check.

-Cruz passed it multiple times
-Paddock passed it multiple times

That's just two examples of recent shootings.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Only it's not very easy, you have to meet all the legal requirements to buy a gun from a store.

Cruz met the two requirements to get his AR-15 type assault rifle. He was 18 and he passed his "instant background check". Seems pretty easy.

That's a failure of the agency's that should have been putting his info into the system, so it would show up on a background check.

Originally posted by Robtard
Her point was that it's very easy to buy a gun in the US and she is correct. Multiple examples showing the ease of getting a gun have been cited and I even used the one pertaining to Nikolas Cruz specifically.

You're scraping the barrel to attack her like the retards who made that nonsense story about her bullying Cruz because he was pro-gun and Cruz being the real victim in all is.

Your examples don't hold up. You said Walmart didn't do background checks and one example you used was a private transaction.

For Paddock...I don't think he had anything in his background that would have come up to stop him from getting a gun. So the fact he passed a background check doesn't show they aren't good enough. Sometimes people commit crimes without having done anything prior to hint they would do it.

For Cruz I don't know if the background check failed or not. I am aware that the police were alerted to this kid many many times. I have no clue if any of those warnings should have been added to something that would come up in a background check. If they were not added then that is a failure of law enforcement, not background checks.

Reminds me of the guy from Texas who shouldn't have been able to buy a gun, but the military dropped the ball.

It is not "easy" to get a gun. You need the money to buy it, an ID, and if you wanna get it from anyone licensed you need to pass a background check. How quickly that check is done is irrelevant, what is relevant is the accuracy.

Plus hey, you need an ID. This is not an easy thing to get. At least...that is what the people who scream that needing an ID to vote is racist say.

Originally posted by Silent Master
That's a failure of the agency's that should have been putting his info into the system, so it would show up on a background check.

People with a record of mental illness pass background checks. The Virginia Tech Shooter had a history of it and he still acquired his guns.

And a year or so ago: Trump Signs Bill Revoking Obama-Era Gun Checks for People With Mental Illnesses

The NRA approved of that, cos "muh 2nd mend'ment rights!" reasons.

Originally posted by Surtur
Your examples don't hold up. You said Walmart didn't do background checks and one example you used was a private transaction.

I stopped reading right there. I didn't say that, that's a strawman argument you're doing.

If I am wrong, quote me where I said that here. Go.

Originally posted by Robtard
People with a record of mental illness pass background checks. The Virginia Tech Shooter had a history of it and he still acquired his guns.

And a year or so ago: Trump Signs Bill Revoking Obama-Era Gun Checks for People With Mental Illnesses

The NRA approved of that, cos "muh 2nd mend'ment rights!" reasons.

Why did the ACLU and other disability advocacy groups also approve of it?

Originally posted by Robtard
I stopped reading right there. I didn't say that, that's a strawman argument you're doing.

If I am wrong, quote me where I said that here. Go.

I stopped reading after you of all people whined about a strawman.

I never said one didn't need a background check. I said her point was that it's very easy to get a gun in the US and it is. I then used various examples of people buying guns same-day from stores.

IIRC over 10,000 people have failed the background check for mental health in the last 10-15 years. so either his mental issues weren't reported to the proper agency so that it'd show up on a background check or the report wasn't serious enough to exclude him.

That's 660ish to 1,000 failures per year. That's not a whole lot.

According to the FBI database, there were 25+ million NICS firearm background checks in 2017. 8+ million in 2003 and 12+ million in 2008. 4.3 million since Feb of this year.

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf/view

When you only have 1 example of someone who passed that you think should have been refused due to his record of mental health issues and 10,000 that failed.

That sounds like a pretty good percentage.

Cruz wasn't denied because he qualified under the set standards. iirc, he purchased 7 guns since turning 18, or within a year or so of his murder spree.

I wasn't aware that Cruz sought treatment for metal health issues and thus had an official record that a background check could find. do you have a link?

Now you're moving the post to "he sought treatment". Nice.

But he had a psychiatric evaluation in 2016 and was found to be stable enough.

If he doesn't have official records that would show up on a background check, how can you expect a background check to catch sed problems and fail him?

There you go, if he was found to be stable. what more do you want?

Probably because that's something you invented.

What are you claiming I invented?