Did the death penalty deter the SC shooter?

[beevul]

32. "You are not allowed to drink and drive even if you've never hurt anyone before"

"You are not allowed to drink and drive even if you've never hurt anyone before"

Indeed. But again, nobody takes anyones license until AFTER someone does. And even when someone does, they still own their car.

And what exactly disqualifies someone?

The Gun Control Act (GCA) makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms. 18 USC 922(g). Transfers of firearms to any such prohibited persons are also unlawful. 18 USC 922(d).

These categories include any person:

•Under indictment or information in any court for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;


•convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;


•who is a fugitive from justice;


•who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;


•who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;


•who is an illegal alien;


•who has been discharged from the military under dishonorable conditions;


•who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;


•who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or


•who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (enacted by the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 104-208, effective September 30, 1996). 18 USC 922(g) and (n).

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons

So much for the 'unregulated' talking point thrown about so freely and regularly.

The lines we set are arbitrary, but they are ALWAYS set somewhere and they were set based on previous incidents that have occurred.

True only to a point. There are limitations on lines being set, which limit the degree to which people may use government as a 'club' to beat others with. Those limitations are referred to as the bill of rights.

It simply comes down to the fact that there is no purpose for a civilian to be walking around with assault weapons. There is no reason for anyone to be walking around town with military weapons of any kind. There is simply NO reason for these weapons to be in people's hands. They're designed to kill. Nothing less. Nothing more. That is their clear purpose.

First, this is your opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

Second, so called 'assault weapons' and "military weapons" are two different things. It is unclear which, at this point, you are actually talking about.

Third, "Designed to kill"? All firearms are designed to propel a projectile down a metal tube, at a target of the users choice. Besides that, 99+ percent of them are NOT being used to kill, an inconvenient fact with rather thoroughly does away with the 'designed to kill' nonsense.

lastly, nobody NEEDS your approval/permission or anyone elses to own firearms, nor should they. Pro-gun folks see gun ownership as a RIGHT, and you seem to see it as a privilege. If indeed that's the way you do see it, theres nothing for us to really talk about. Theres no middle ground between a right and a privilege, and the two shall never meet.

More often than not the people in this country that claim they need guns to protect themselves are racists looking to protect themselves against Black people and "Mexicans" who might rob them, but again statistics show they won't.

Now you've gone completely off the rails. You have no way of knowing that, so how can you possibly claim that?

You can't.

Riddle me this:

How much gun control is enough?