Stricter guns laws would be there to prevent guns from being in the hands of crazy people

Perhaps the police should have notified the Federal Gov't that this asshole had mental issues.
If he bought those guns at a gun store the FEDERAL GOV"T allowed this asshole to purchase it after conducting a background check.

Yes but the problem is that people are saying that "it looks like there was nothing they could do" when they sure as heck could have been something that could have been done. If there are stricter gun laws that involve more thorough background checks that would prevent people like him from getting guns. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/17/us/indianapolis-shooting-victims.html here is a link to the story. It says "Those purchases, the chief suggested, would have been possible only if a red flag determination had never been made. Red flag laws, which exist in more than a dozen states, moved to the center of the national conversation about gun regulation after a massacre at a Florida high school in 2018.

It remains uncertain whether a judge ruled against a red flag determination in Mr. Hole’s case or whether prosecutors took his case before a judge at all." so yeah people did screw up. But people claim that stricter gun laws are gonna take their guns away, but as long as they are capable of handling guns properly and own them legally they should be fine! It's crazies like this who guns will be taken from.

Nonsense. Most gun crimes and shootings occur in Democrat controlled enclaves that have the strictest gun control laws. PERIOD

Red flag laws are going to be abused by people who have a vendetta against someone.
If the cops take a gun because they believe that the owner is nuts, then THEY should have the owner subject to a mental evaluation by an independent mental health professional. If found to be deficient, then put him on a no buy list.
See how sole that is?

Why do you think those strict gun control laws are there? Also some people are just crazy. Doesn't matter what political party they are a part of. And just because it is a Democrat controlled area doesn't mean everybody there is Democrat. I have a classmate who I know for a fact is a Trump supporter. He was nice and didn't actually try to engage in any political arguments so I did the same.

Because leftist Democrats don't trust the citizenry of their states and cities. Because they want to disarm the citizens. If they really cared about freedom and safety, they would encourage people to be proficient in the use of firearms.
The whole issue has been politicized for decades ...

Okay lets imagine this. There are 2 worlds. 1 where everyone has guns and 1 where guns don't even exist. Which do you think is safer? I'm not saying that nobody should have guns but that some guns aren't necessary. You will still have guns just to avoid the more dangerous ones somehow falling into the hands of those who shouldn't have them they should be limited as much as possible. There are guns good for civilians, and then there are military and law enforcement grade guns. Civilians don't need the same gun power as someone who might need it to say fight enemy soldiers and defend the country. That is unnecessary. And they will be more likely to fall into the hands of those who simply should never have any kind of gun. These laws aren't out to get you. They are meant to try to help protect you.

What a load of dogshit.
You are all over the place...first no guns then some guns are necessary...
"You will still have guns just to avoid the more dangerous ones somehow falling into the hands of those who shouldn't have them..."
Then you hit me with "There are guns good for civilians, and then there are military and law enforcement grade guns"... 😳 WTF 😒
The Second Amendment is there for one purpose...to give the PEOPLE the means to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. PERIOD
Stick to horticulture, son. I'll stick to my guns.

I wasn't saying there should be no guns. I was speaking hypothetically. Talking about imaginary words. The key word there was "imagine."
There are different kinds of guns. That was my point. Not outlawing all guns. I honestly was just gonna put military but cops use guns too for their jobs. A cop shouldn't have a gun that is meant for battle nor does it make sense for a civilian to have one to use. It's just to limit the variety of guns crazy people and out laws can get their hands on. I'm not fully against guns. I don't say "ban all guns." Just maybe some are a little more than necessary. If the government tried to ban ALL guns then yes I'd be agreeing with you right now but that's not the case. My point was that there are different kinds of guns for different purposes. That was all. If everyone was law abiding and responsible with guns this wouldn't be a problem but unfortunately that's not how people are. There will always be crazies and criminals unfortunately. And unfortunately their actions have consequences that also affect those who do what they're supposed to. Some kids are irresponsible with some toy at school and then it gets banned for all kids. It happens. Life is unfair.
I'm not saying ban all guns. That would be crazy. I'm just saying slightly stricter laws couldn't hurt. Not just laws on the guns themselves but on the background checks and stuff. I never said all guns should be banned altogether. I'm not saying that. Never have I said that.

I don't have to imagine. I know exactly what it would be like. Cuba, Venezuela, Nazi Germany, USSR, China, North Korea, and a host of third world hellholes.

Stricter gun laws do absolutely nothing. You can pass all the laws in the world but when you are dealing with someone who is mentally ill they are going to do what ever they want to do.

The very definition of a criminal is someone who breaks the law. There has never been a threshold, the number of laws, that has ever prevented a criminal. No criminal has ever said, "Golly, I was about to go shoot up a liquor store tonight but the president just signed the 3,924,430,234,340th new gun control law. 3,924,430,234,339 is my limit, I won't break any more laws."

99.9999% of all gun laws only punish the law abiding.

See, that's the kind of attitude that puts people in danger. "when you are dealing with someone who is mentally ill they are going to do what ever they want to do." You're saying that as if there is nothing anyone can do about it but there IS! Some people just say "it is what it is" "there's nothing you can do about it" when what it is isn't ok. Of course there is always something you can do about it!
Sure some of them will always find ways to get their hands on guns but that doesn't mean there isn't anything that can be done to make it harder for them to do so! Especially the more dangerous guns! Not all guns are the same. There are many different kinds all with different ranges, ammo, power, and how many rounds they fire at once, and when you have to reload! Some are just more dangerous. That's how it is.
While yes that is unfortunately kinda true sometimes we have to make sacrifices for our own safety. Like how you aren't allowed to drive while drunk (but some people do it anyway) or how smoking is bad for you so many have to give it up or how drugs (medical drugs included if too much is taken or if the person doesn't need them in the first place) can hurt your body and even kill you.

Everything is already in place to prevent the mentally ill from getting guns. The problem is that database the government maintains is NOT maintained. Anytime a psychiatrist identifies someone they might think is a threat who has an actual mental illness that person should be reported to the government so they can be added to the database. They are not.

However, the vast majority of mentally ill people who go on to kill people did not buy a gun, they stole it.

If you want to truly stop or dramatically reduce the number of homicides in the US then require everyone to own a gun and require everyone to be trained in firearm safety. And require refresher courses every 1 to 5 years.

This will eliminate criminal murders overnight. Why? No one wants to get shot, not even the most hardened criminal. Survival in innate in every single person.

I am not actually advocating for such requirements because owning anything is up to an individual. The government already has far too much control.

So if criminals fear they might get shot they will be less emboldened to commit crime. This fact is backed up by all sorts of statistics. Cities with the most restrictive gun laws all have the highest murder rates in America. Cities with the least have the lowest crime rate.

A study from University of Florida found that a firearm is used 2.7 times more to PREVENT crime than to commit crime. And that number is based just on reported cases. Many times those cases never get reported and most of the time the legal gun owner never has to fire a shot. The bad guy just runs away when they see a gun.

If you want to be safe then research which firearm would be best for you and, by all means, take a firearm safety course. The NRA teaches several courses on gun safety. In addition learn martial arts and stick with it for as many years as you can. Also move to a safe neighborhood if you are not already in one. This is about self-confidence and not about fear. It's no different than installing smoke detectors in your house. It is not that you fear burning to death but that you want to know that you can get to safety if a fire does happen. Guns are no different.

And please ignore any stats put out by Democrats or the media. They do not care at all for your safety. If they did they wouldn't lie so much about guns. Crimes happen in seconds. Police response times happen in several minutes.

if you outlaw guns only outlaws will use them stricter gun laws do nothing

Not saying to outlaw ALL guns! But there are ways of making it harder for outlaws to obtain CERTAIN guns! Certain models! I never said "ban all guns"

But dems want to make sure guns are harder to get for everybody

Strict gun laws are like taking away vehicles from good drivers because a drunk driver killed someone.

First of all, cars aren't designed to kill or injure. Guns are. Also there are many different kinds of guns. If only some are prohibited (the more dangerous ones) that's not all of them you can still have guns.

The more dangerous ones? Who's to decide that? From my experience, the ones calling for more gun control are there ones who don't know anything about guns. A .22 lr can be just as deadly as an AR-15, a 9mm handgun is just as a .308. Hitmen use home made .22 handguns. So which are the most dangerous?

The 223 Remington is the typical caliber for the AR-15. Notice it's labeled under "varmint" the 30-06 is one of the most common hunting rifles. But people who don't know better want to ban the squirrel and badger hunting rifle?

Taking away someone's rights without due process is unconstitutional.

You will still have guns it's not like all of them would be taken away.

These are laws for background checks and stuff when it comes to purchasing guns that I am talking about. But since you mentioned that different kinds of guns have different kinds of capabilities. Now I myself don't actually know a lot about guns so I cannot say much on that but it actually makes sense for civilians to not be able to have the same guns that people who serve in the military or something have. They are just trying to keep people safe. People can still have guns you don't actually need to have just one kind or nothing. There are other guns that is the point. They want to avoid the more powerful and dangerous guns ending up in the hands of crazies because sometimes you don't actually know. Sometimes people just snap without warning or they seem perfectly fine but actually aren't. It isn't like they are taking away all guns.

Since you just admitted that you "don't know a lot about guns" perhaps you should educate yourself about them and the laws as the exist before you make any comments about them.

What I meant is I'm not an expert. But neither are a lot of the people who talk about gun laws (on both sides). All I said was I cannot say much and also my word should not be taken as if I were an expert but that doesn't completely invalidate it. I am not pretending to be an expert. Since I'm not an expert there are some areas on the topic that I can't talk about because I don't know enough. I was talking about what I do know. I am admitting I don't know everything there is to know about the topic. I stated what I DO know. Maybe you should actually read everything people say before you take it out of context and reply to their comments twisting their words.

Well, I am an expert. I know what I am talking about, you don't. I didn't take anything out of context.

I don't have to have immense knowledge on something to say what my opinion based on what I DO know and also talk about what I DO know! I didn't talk about what I didn't know because I don't know about it! I don't know about different kinds of gun models and stuff like that! That's all I meant! I don't need to know what gun fires the most bullets at a time to talk about gun laws!

What are you babbling about?