How did he get his gun(s)?
That was rhetorical, right?
Not really. He had a previous conviction. So, either he got the gun(s) illegally, or there was an oversight from the state.
One thing is certain: that firearm, no matter how many hands it passed through, ultimately traces back to a legal point of origin.
Edit: Let’s stop pussyfooting around this. As long as firearms are being manufactured and remain legal, there’s no realistic way to keep them entirely out of criminal hands. If you’re comfortable with them being legal, then you’re also accepting the reality that some will end up in the wrong hands. The two go hand in hand.
And you're going to take them from law enforcement, also?
If not, they'll still get into criminal hands.
And we can't keep out drugs, you think we can keep out guns?
And it's reached the point that CNC machines can do much of making a gun. Not competitive with a factory but I'm sure you have heard of the ghost guns that are about. It's not the printed stuff that matters--those are single shot, unreliable and hazardous for the user. But the CNC-manufactured stuff is just as good as what the factory makes.
And even if you completely cut off the supply there are so many out there that the problem won't go away.
You’re arguing against a position I didn’t take,
again, which is both predictable and boring. I never said anything about taking guns away. What I said is simple: if firearms are legal and widely available, some will inevitably end up in criminal hands. That’s just reality. If you support guns remaining legal, then you’re accepting the tradeoff that comes with it.
You can argue that the tradeoff is worth it, but pretending the downside isn’t directly tied to availability is a mental disorder. Gun rights supporters like myself acting surprised or outraged every time someone who shouldn’t have a gun ends up with one doesn’t make sense to me.
And to be clear, it’s not like the law is soft on this. There are already serious penalties for illegal possession at both the federal and state level. The Gun Control Act of 1968 makes it a felony for prohibited individuals to possess firearms, with penalties that can mean years behind bars.
However enforcement,
predictably mind you
, isn’t always consistent. Charges get reduced, sentences end up lighter than expected, and outcomes vary. I've read the teeth gnashing and bitching repeatedly on this forum. But that still reinforces my point. Even with laws on the books, the system doesn’t perfectly stop access or guarantee uniform consequences.
Acting surprised when the government operates inefficiently doesn’t make much sense to me either.
CNC talk doesn’t change anything either, if anything, it reinforces the point that access can’t be perfectly controlled, which is exactly why the tradeoffs matter.
I’m tired of the performative outrage and gaslighting from gun rights advocates. If you support widespread gun ownership, own the tradeoffs and argue for it honestly.
