The idiot illogic of Trump's answer to that "extreme vetting" question
Asked about this, Trump replied that if Willeford hadn't had a gun with which to stop it the killings would have been in the hundreds.
That gave Steve M pause.
[Trump is] suggesting that if we had extreme vetting of gun purchasers, Devin Patrick Kelley would have been approved for gun purchases -- and Stephen Willeford wouldn't have.
Is that really what he believes?
That Kelley, who spent a year in military confinement for assaulting his wife and infant stepson, cracking the child's skull, would have passed the extreme check, but Willeford -- who, as far as we know is completely law-abiding -- wouldn't have?
Therefore, by Trump's logic, extreme vetting is a process potentially riddled with error?
Or a process meant to reject everyone, even the deserving?
Or perhaps he believes that Willeford would have failed the check and gone without guns, while Kelley would have failed and gone to the black market.
But what evidence do we have that Kelley would have bought guns illegally?
He had a bad conduct discharge from the military after being found guilty of domestic violence.
He had reason to believe he might fail at least his first background check -- yet he bought four weapons over the past four years from licensed dealers who subjected him to checks.
No one is proposing a background check system that everyone fails.
But it's not hard to imagine a system that catching [sic] Kelley and doesn't catch Willeford.
By American standards, that would be extreme.
Of course, the system in place, had the Air Force complied with its legal obligations, would have done exactly that, with no change at all in the law.
So it's already extreme vetting?
So how does this particular shooting show we need more and tighter restrictions on who can own a gun?
No comments:
Post a Comment