Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So how long until this is labeled an act of terrorism?

 skyth wrote:
So how long until this is labeled an act of terrorism?

Why would it be?

If he was given a Colt M1911 A1 that he used in the shootings he must have been a very good shot and also reloaded at least once. Surely there would have been an opportunity for the congregation to return fire with their own weapons?

remember this isn't terrorism its domestic terrorism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If he was given a Colt M1911 A1 that he used in the shootings he must have been a very good shot and also reloaded at least once. Surely there would have been an opportunity for the congregation to return fire with their own weapons?

Not entirely sure if KK here is trolling or not. Or if the misconception that every American walks around with a gun is that prevalent.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If he was given a Colt M1A1 that he used in the shootings he must have been a very good shot and also reloaded at least once. Surely there would have been an opportunity for the congregation to return fire with their own weapons?

If you read a few of the linked articles you would know he did reload. And if you bothered to read the posts in the topic you would know churches in SC are 'gun free zones', where you cannot legally have a gun.

But then, that would kind of take away the impact of your point.

 CptJake wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If he was given a Colt M1A1 that he used in the shootings he must have been a very good shot and also reloaded at least once. Surely there would have been an opportunity for the congregation to return fire with their own weapons?

If you read a few of the linked articles you would know he did reload. And if you bothered to read the posts in the topic you would know churches in SC are 'gun free zones', where you cannot legally have a gun.

But then, that would kind of take away the impact of your point.

If it was illegal to have a gun in church why was this guy carrying one?

 kronk wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


The reason I'm curious is Daddy gave him a .45 for his B-Day. If the conviction was a felony conviction that would indicate legal ramifications for Daddy. Poor judgement giving your kid with any arrest record a gun (I would not, and I have given guns as gifts).

Agreed.

this is why the only major law that needs tightening is the few instances of sales of firearms where no BG check is made. I think even in private sales there should at least be a # to call, run their drivers license or ID through, get a yes no answer to do they have a criminal background, and then continue with the sale after a 5-20 min phone call (assuming no record of course)

the states really has good gun laws, IE no guns for crooks, its just that enforcement of these laws is a bit slap dash so we have loopholes like this unfortunately.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:

 skyth wrote:
So how long until this is labeled an act of terrorism?

Why would it be?

it really shouldnt be, but it probably will be. because reasons.

also fear, panic, terror.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If he was given a Colt M1A1 that he used in the shootings he must have been a very good shot and also reloaded at least once. Surely there would have been an opportunity for the congregation to return fire with their own weapons?

If you read a few of the linked articles you would know he did reload. And if you bothered to read the posts in the topic you would know churches in SC are 'gun free zones', where you cannot legally have a gun.

But then, that would kind of take away the impact of your point.

If it was illegal to have a gun in church why was this guy carrying one?

It would seem criminals don't always obey laws. Go figure.

It would also seem the majority of the mass shootings occur in 'gun free zones'. Again, go figure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


The reason I'm curious is Daddy gave him a .45 for his B-Day. If the conviction was a felony conviction that would indicate legal ramifications for Daddy. Poor judgement giving your kid with any arrest record a gun (I would not, and I have given guns as gifts).

Agreed.

this is why the only major law that needs tightening is the few instances of sales of firearms where no BG check is made. I think even in private sales there should at least be a # to call, run their drivers license or ID through, get a yes no answer to do they have a criminal background, and then continue with the sale after a 5-20 min phone call (assuming no record of course)

the states really has good gun laws, IE no guns for crooks, its just that enforcement of these laws is a bit slap dash so we have loopholes like this unfortunately.

If Daddy got the background check and legally bought the gun, your point is not valid at all. The only sale made, dealer to Daddy, followed the law. What part of that indicates a need to tighten the law?

I dont think you read it properly CPT JAKE


i said *PRIVATE* sales(or transfers in the case of a gift) should also have a # to call to check for criminal records, set up a hot line thats free and anonymous for the seller, bam, one phone call and you know if the guy is a crook or not.

 easysauce wrote:
I dont think you read it properly CPT JAKE


i said *PRIVATE* sales should also have a # to call to check for criminal records

There was no private sale. Hence if a law requiring a check for private sales existed, the kid still would have had the gun Daddy gave him as a gift.

 curran12 wrote:
How about we say that both sides have groups that act stupidly and not use this tragedy as a piece of political leverage?

Oh my sweet summer child.

Now that it is basically resolved until we start getting charges brought/court happening, I'm going to lock it because all that is happening are the same pro/anti gun arguments with a hefty sprinkling of people verging on rule 1 violations, and since these threads so often end in calm agreeement and logical discussion from both sides...wait what am I saying? So yeah, when charges start we'll start a new thread, and gun laws will NOT be a part of it until a polly takes action because of the shooting/it becomes actually relevant in some way. We'll leave this sniping for as long as possible, because it is just ugly.