(August 25, 2019 at 6:20 pm)Brian37 Wrote:(August 25, 2019 at 6:09 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: But that's got nothing to do with vetting.
Boru
edit: Whaddya mean 'now we are getting somewhere'? I asked you that pages and pages ago.
YES IT DOES....
It is the same fucking principle as a bar asking for ID instead of looking at the teen and assuming they are 21.
If the NRA LOGIC worked like that, then I should be able to fly a passenger Jet just because I have never gotten a DWI despite having driven home drunk without getting caught 1,000 times. I personally don't drink and drive, just making a metaphor.
I am NOT, nor have ever argued ending all firearm sales.
I am saying the industry CEOs whom sale the products should give a shit, BUT THEY DO NOT.
AGAIN, this thread IS NOT the first thread or post on this subject, and I have listed tons of ideas I think could help reduce firearm violence.
NOTHING will work as long as the right and firearm worshipers ignore facts.
Banning large clips isn't vetting. Banning weapons of war (whatever that means) isn't vetting. Extending waiting periods isn't vetting. Vetting (in this topic) means determining who is and isn't allowed to purchase firearms.
So, again. Someone passes a background check. This person fulfills the waiting period. This person shows no signs of having plans to harm someone. In this case, what standards would you use to keep this person from obtaining a firearm at the point of sale?
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax