I think this would be an additional charge type of thing. For example if say a house was searched for what ever reason and guns were found not locked up then charges would be brought
Frankly, I don’t know. Maybe a combo lock is more effective? I know that accessing a safe isn’t fool-proof, but maybe something could have been done.
2 - We don’t. I am assuming he had a reasonable way of accessing them.
3 - You can’t. You can only continue to do safety awareness training. It does work.
I just know that all too many times I go talk to people and they don’t lock theirs up. They keep shotguns behind their beds or in closets where they are easily acessible for personal safety. I’ve had some folks try to convince me that for home protection I should just keep a 12ga behind my bed unlocked (unless I have children then I should keep a handgun in locked safe near bed).
News and other people already mentioned he was above average intelligence.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to go on youtube and figure out how to open a safe given its in your own home etc.
How easy it is for people to access guns like this isn’t even the issue if you go down south/texas/etc people have guns stored everywhere glass cabinets etc. If ease of access was the issue there would be significantly more shooting down there then anywhere else.
It’s simply speculation at the moment. We don’t know these details. If he was that smart, mom might have just trusted him to be around guns. He has probably been around guns his whole life. Typically the type of folks to keep that extensive of weapons around their homes share that interest with their children. He obviously knew how to shoot and obviously knew how to reload quickly. For that reason, I can assume he had easy access. Of course, I understand that this isn’t a fact.
you can always find a way around whatever or another way to commit the crime. that alone is not a reason to not have reasonable laws to cover the majority. hence the speed limit and car registration analogies.
would you guys be against car registration? please explain your answer.
I don’t disagree with you. I wouldn’t heartbroken to see a ban on asault weapons, 30 round mags and closing the loop hole of guns shows (whatever that is, I’m not familiar).
I know that North Carolina state law already requires fairly decent background and mental health checks for pistol permits as well as CCH permits. Not sure about long guns.
All I am saying is that it likely wouldn’t have drastically changed the outcome of this one crime. Even if guns didn’t exist, a crime could have been committed. He could have committed arson, he could have committed killed them with a vehicle, he could have stabbed, etc…
Seriously?
So when some dumb broad kills someone while texting and driving we should all feel better because the car was registered?
Or when some drunk guy leaves a bar and wiped out a family at least the car was registered?
The more interesting part is both of those things are highly likely to happen today but a mass shooting isn’t
i love that a canadian is saying that our 2nd ammendment doesnt apply to 50yo women
keep that attitude in Canada!
Yep. The fuck good does it do?
I’m not against gun control laws. I’m against stupid and ineffective laws.
Cars have been licensed and registered for 100 years. I would have had to drive my registered and licensed car to Sears & Roebuck in 1925 to buy my unregistered legal machine gun. There are not millions of unregistered cars to be registered overnight by a government that turns everything into a bureaucratic quagmire. I don’t think registration is the issue, as i said I don’t care about that one way or the other. It doesn’t effect me. its implementing it and in the end it solving nothing. Waste of time and money. Like i said, the only REAL solution is to go door to door and confiscate everything. Anything else is not going to stop a determined killer.
i didnt say anything about taking guns away, didn’t even suggest it in the slightest and i am well aware that she had two pistols and you’ll notice i didnt even touch that.
so again a deflection or at least a sensationalization of one point to ignore the other.
I did state that she doesnt need an AR15 so it shouldn’t be so easy to get them and keep them laying around.
that is not at all contrary to the letter or spirit of the bill of rights.
Why don’t we ban alcohol? Someone in your life has a way better chance of being killed in a DWI then a random shooting?
Whats your plan for regulating diesel fuel and fertilizer to prevent the next Tim McVeigh?
Actually, the Bill of rights intended for the people of the United States to be armed in order to defend themselves against foreign and domestic enemies. The spirit of the bill of rights suggests that the populace be armed in the same manner as the military. It was not meant for FPS Russia to make youtube videos and Joe Public to go skeet shooting… inb4 “but they had flintlocks back then!”
Well said :tup:
Running out and doing things to give people a false sense of security is idiotic which is exactly what politicians are doing.
Look at post 9/11 TSA and all the new security measures yet the majority of times when they get tested with fake firearms/bombs the end up getting by all the latest security screening.
Does anyone feel safer? Nope
It’s the same shit with knee jerk reactions to gun incidents if someone really wants to cause harm they will figure out a way.
Riddle me this - Why is an assault rifle more dangerous than say an M-1 Garand (8 shot WWII semi auto 30-06) or a British SMLE (pre WWI 10 shot bolt action, cock on closing very high rate of fire .303)?.. both can put out the same rate of fire as a NYS compliant AR15. How about a 5 shot semi auto shotgun? I would hate to see the effects of a 12ga with 00 buck in the confined space of a classroom.
The news is feeding this YOU WON’T BE SAFE TILL ASSAULT WEAPONS ARE GONE THEY WILL KILL YOU
However the FBI stats show rifle deaths are in the 300s per year
Maybe we should work on things that are bit more important?
Heart disease: 599,413
Cancer: 567,628
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021
Alzheimer’s disease: 79,003
Diabetes: 68,705
Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909
Using some random outlier event to influence policy is :tif:
Like I mentioned earlier if this was 20 inner city children shot this wouldn’t even be a debate we would be back to fiscal cliff debates.
Fucking enough. Lets get real.
Why isn’t anybody suggesting broad sweeping banning of guns? Arguing that you can still kill people with knives and stones is stupid. Guns are by far the best way to commit violence. With minimal planning you can precisely kill a lot of people from a safe distance but still close enough for it to be satisfying. Knives and stones put you way too close to danger. For all practical purposes guns are what you use to commit violence. Hunting and target shooting is a stupid argument. My safety is more important than your hobbies. Overthrowing the government is a stupid argument. A citizen’s militia isn’t going to force out the government with the strongest military humanity has ever conceived. A revolution here would have to be a bloodless coupe. Further, you can’t argue that you need legal guns to illegally overthrow the government and then argue that you shouldn’t have gun control because only criminals would have guns.
If you want to take away a population’s means to violence in a meaningful way you have to start a grand reduction in the availability of firearms. If you try to just target the bad guys’ guns you won’t get anywhere. There too fucking many guns in the world. So would you anti-gun people please get fucking serious and start proposing effective laws? If you pussy foot around with weak laws you will only take guns from the most compliant of law abiding citizens. Violent criminals are going to be the last ones to give up their guns so either take everyone’s guns or fuck off and let us freely defend ourselves against those who are not hindered by the law.
This shit has to be all or nothing. We need to either be totally impotent against one another or assured by mutual destruction. Unless you believe you can somehow prevent violent criminals from getting access to guns while allowing the rest of us access, this is the only way. I do not believe that that is possible. Hence this is my stance: Take everyone’s guns or take no one’s guns.
/thread
I’m out.
why not the simple baseline of registration and background checks? it just makes sense since 40% of gun sales are done with a handshake. I think I read 70% of NRA members would be OK with this (closing the gun show loophole).
I don’t believe taking guns away is possible either, but lets get a system of tracking in place and then we can really work on getting guns away from the wrong people more effectively while punishing those who don’t comply and commit crimes better.
The reason you’re not getting positive responses in this thread is look at the topic.
Your suggestion would have done nothing to prevent that incident from happening.
If the news is correct the current system in fact did work in CT he attempted to buy a gun and was forced into the waiting period at which point he murdered someone and took their weapons.
The entire other issue is most of these mass shooting people have no prior crime history so do all the background checks you want.
Do you see why your whole point isn’t relevant to this?
It’s the same thing with the magazine size argument he wasn’t attacking people fighting back nothing was stopping him from reloading and when people are trapped in a room :tif:
A lot more people died in the Oklahoma city bombing and I didn’t see people running about bitching about fertilizer limits
Look at the attack in CO no prior history and above average intelligence enough to plant bombs around his house…You think if some magic stopped him from getting a gun he wouldn’t have blown people up somewhere?