***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (4 Viewers)

[Henry Ford]

Random idea: why don't we make it that if you are the registered owner of a firearm used to maim or kill a person (non self defense category) then you are liable in civil and /or criminal court for the resulting charges? Would that encourage people to better lock up their guns? Take it one step further, if you sold the gun to the person then it is on you as well.

Because that would run approximately opposite to everything our legal system does with proximate cause and criminal liability.

 

[Abraham]

Random idea: why don't we make it that if you are the registered owner of a firearm used to maim or kill a person (non self defense category) then you are liable in civil and /or criminal court for the resulting charges? Would that encourage people to better lock up their guns? Take it one step further, if you sold the gun to the person then it is on you as well.

Because that would run approximately opposite to everything our legal system does with proximate cause and criminal liability.

I think it would empower those that are most in favor of gun freedoms - vendor and owners - to police themselves instead of having the government try and do it. Right now, a gun store owner can sell firearms legally and the federal background check gives him cya coverage. "Hey, I'm just trying to run a business. I followed the rules...how could I know that guy would be crazy?" My theory would let the store owner say, "you know, I wish I could have sold that glock today but the system we put in place at our store made me think that maybe that guy did not have business with a gun. We'll let someone else be responsible for selling that fire arm." Over time, systems (and private companies) will pop up to create screening systems far superior to what is legislated from capital buildings.

 

[sporthenry]

Random idea: why don't we make it that if you are the registered owner of a firearm used to maim or kill a person (non self defense category) then you are liable in civil and /or criminal court for the resulting charges? Would that encourage people to better lock up their guns? Take it one step further, if you sold the gun to the person then it is on you as well.

Because that would run approximately opposite to everything our legal system does with proximate cause and criminal liability.

Aren't there laws that hold bars and parents liable if their patrons get duis. I know not all states operate this way but most have them if there is a party at your house with underage drinking even if not under the supervision of said parents

 

[hammerva]

Can someone please explain why the people who believe that you should carry loaded weapons anywhere you want feel the need to have them concealed. I mean if you are the "law abiding responsible" citizen that you claim to be then why are you worried about hiding it? And if the purpose of arming everyone like a ####### video game wouldn't you want then to actually see the weapon to make them think twice?If you want to treat this world like a first person shooter game that is fine by me but don't hide it from us. Let us know that you have a loaded weapon in the bar, library, church, and school so I can get the #### away from you

You really should not be like this and you answered your own question. It's a real shame and I hope you consider to feel different in the future. LA has an open carry law. They are allowed too. Most people who can not get a concealed carry permit, but can own a gun can open carry...Which makes no sense to me, but whatever.There are a few reasons I rather conceal. Biggest is how I am viewed by someone like you. If I open carry, the last thing I want to do is 1. make someone uncomfortable - If I told half the people I talk to in stores that I was carrying I think they would avoid me all together. People should not be afraid of guns, but they are. 2. Increases the chance I am a victim. I am promoting a $4-500 gun for free on my hip. All you have to do is sneak behind me and get the upper hand. That gun can be stolen and used on me, my family or someone else.

The idea that people "should not be afraid of guns" after today is laughable. If this nut job went to the school with a knife or a bow or whatever weapon of excuse that gun lovers like to use, there isn't that many causalities. There is still deaths and and too many no matter what the number but at least value. Of course gun owners don't have the mentality of worried about people because they have a loaded killing machine with them as their security blanket. I am sure if I had a loaded weapon with me I wouldn't be worried about the loud drunk at the bar or the guy at the train station screaming and yelling on the phone for no reason or the creepy guy at the mall who looks like he hasn't bathed. When people say "Guns don't kill people. people kill people" they are right. So why would you give people who are shaky an extra advantage. You can use that "law abiding responsible citizen" line all you want but a number of people with no prior arrest records have lost responsibility at an instance. Was there anything that Javon Belcher did before the shooting that warranted him NOT getting a gun? It is easy to say after the shooting that Colorado movie shooting guy was too mentally disturbed for a weapon after we found how disturbed he was. No human beings are "law abiding responsible" citizens ALL THE TIME.Now I said all this, the current gun laws have failed miserably and maybe we should have a "social experiment" and just walk around like a video game with loaded weapons everywhere and see how things turned out. I just don't know if it can get any worse.

 

[BassNBrew]

Random idea: why don't we make it that if you are the registered owner of a firearm used to maim or kill a person (non self defense category) then you are liable in civil and /or criminal court for the resulting charges? Would that encourage people to better lock up their guns? Take it one step further, if you sold the gun to the person then it is on you as well.

While we're at it, let's hold FBG civilly responsible for any losses resulting from poor football projections. Give your kids a key to the car, any tickets are on you.

 

[Clifford]

But the evidence that gun ownership leads to higher homicide or suicide rates is pretty shaky. There are more accidental deaths by firearm, but the overall number is still pretty small. (All IIRC from the last time I looked at this.)

It should also be noted that approximately 52 million households have a gun (in 2007. couldn't find more recent info) THat same year, there were approximately 100,000 shootings (both lethal and non-lethal, intentional and accidental, and suicides) Assuming a separate person committed each shooting (which we all know was not the case), that means, only .19% of the households with guns were in involved in a shooting.

1 shooing is too many. Justifying it with a % means little to me. 20 kids were shot. That is like .00003% of the children in the country, so I guess this isn't a big deal.

Statistically, it's not. But it is a reminder that any gun law that is passed is really only going to affect the law abiding citizens. We are trying to hit that miniscule percentage that intend to do harm, and that are willing to go about it the "legal way." So the trick is to find out how to get that miniscule amount.

So what do you propose? We do nothing?

Ideally, I'd love for handguns to be restricted to military and law enforcement, but the genie is out of the bottle on that one so it'll never happen. I've sid in other shooting threads that I think mental health professionals should be able to put people on a "no gun list" should they feel that the person is a potential danger (like Loughner, Cho and Holmes.) It won't stop all of these senseless killings (nothing will), but it'll stop a few, and it has no impact on the law abiding, sane gun buyers.

Curious, since you favor this would you oppose one step further down the line what I proposed, that you have to provide proof of medical insurance and that is used to determine whether the potential buyer is currently receiving treatment for a psychiatric condition?

well, everyone is already going to be required to insurance. but no, only because treating someone for anxiety or gender identity disorder is not the same as someone being treated for paranoia schizophrenia or manic depression. And I think knowing that seeking help from a mental health professional would automatically result in gun removal would discourage people from seeking help in the first place. I have that concern with my own idea, but at least if it's on a case by case basis, people wouldn't be quite as discouraged.Court order mental health counseling should also result in being put on a no gun list.

The no gun-list is a better idea and easier to execute. You would obviously have to have a board of the best psychiatrists assist in defining the list of disorders that could cause violent outbursts towards others. My only worry with it is that it would depend solely on the discretion (and will) of the person treating the patient.

 

[Abraham]

Random idea: why don't we make it that if you are the registered owner of a firearm used to maim or kill a person (non self defense category) then you are liable in civil and /or criminal court for the resulting charges? Would that encourage people to better lock up their guns? Take it one step further, if you sold the gun to the person then it is on you as well.

While we're at it, let's hold FBG civilly responsible for any losses resulting from poor football projections. Give your kids a key to the car, any tickets are on you.

I don't think the first is remotely on point. And the second isn't that bad of an idea.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Random idea: why don't we make it that if you are the registered owner of a firearm used to maim or kill a person (non self defense category) then you are liable in civil and /or criminal court for the resulting charges? Would that encourage people to better lock up their guns? Take it one step further, if you sold the gun to the person then it is on you as well.

Because that would run approximately opposite to everything our legal system does with proximate cause and criminal liability.

Aren't there laws that hold bars and parents liable if their patrons get duis. I know not all states operate this way but most have them if there is a party at your house with underage drinking even if not under the supervision of said parents

There are dram shop laws. But that's just negligence in tort. Bar owners aren't strictly liable for serving a guy who commits a vehicular homicide. They're civilly liable if they continued to serve him when he was obviously drunk. I'm sure there have been tort cases charging gun owners with negligence for how a gun was stored. Like if a kid shoots a play date. Abe seems to be suggesting something closer to strict liability or even accomplice criminal liability. That seems a bit crazy.

 

[Abraham]

Abe seems to be suggesting something closer to strict liability or even accomplice criminal liability. That seems a bit crazy.

. I was just throwing it out there, but why is it crazy?As a note: (from the West Wing) there are a lot more democrats then NRA members. Why don't all the dems join the NRA and change their platform?Why doesn't the federal government but the five biggest gun manufacturers and get them out of the business of private gun sales ?

 

[Henry Ford]

Random idea: why don't we make it that if you are the registered owner of a firearm used to maim or kill a person (non self defense category) then you are liable in civil and /or criminal court for the resulting charges? Would that encourage people to better lock up their guns? Take it one step further, if you sold the gun to the person then it is on you as well.

Because that would run approximately opposite to everything our legal system does with proximate cause and criminal liability.

I think it would empower those that are most in favor of gun freedoms - vendor and owners - to police themselves instead of having the government try and do it. Right now, a gun store owner can sell firearms legally and the federal background check gives him cya coverage. "Hey, I'm just trying to run a business. I followed the rules...how could I know that guy would be crazy?" My theory would let the store owner say, "you know, I wish I could have sold that glock today but the system we put in place at our store made me think that maybe that guy did not have business with a gun. We'll let someone else be responsible for selling that fire arm." Over time, systems (and private companies) will pop up to create screening systems far superior to what is legislated from capital buildings.

The store owner can already say that.If you penalize the registered owner without any other caveats, you're saying that if someone steals his gun and shoots someone else, he's criminally and civilly liable. There's an intervening criminal act, there, which we don't hold people liable for in this country. If someone steals your car and runs over a pedestrian, you're not liable for that. If you're saying that handing over the gun intentionally to someone who then shoots someone would subject that person to criminal liability, I'm fine with that as long as there's some kind of reasonable foreseeability of the shooting. Kind of like the dram shop laws mentioned above by another poster.If you impose liability on the seller, that's way beyond anything our legal system does. Can you imagine suing Chrysler for a car accident caused by a bad driver? The effect of that law would be pretty close to getting knocked down on Second Amendment issues dealing with potential purchasers because of the chilling effect on selling firearms, and then you'd be dealing with all the challenges from the sellers, who shouldn't be held liable for failing to diagnose a psychological condition because, you know, they're salespeople, not psychologists.

 

[sporthenry]

Random idea: why don't we make it that if you are the registered owner of a firearm used to maim or kill a person (non self defense category) then you are liable in civil and /or criminal court for the resulting charges? Would that encourage people to better lock up their guns? Take it one step further, if you sold the gun to the person then it is on you as well.

Because that would run approximately opposite to everything our legal system does with proximate cause and criminal liability.

Aren't there laws that hold bars and parents liable if their patrons get duis. I know not all states operate this way but most have them if there is a party at your house with underage drinking even if not under the supervision of said parents

There are dram shop laws. But that's just negligence in tort. Bar owners aren't strictly liable for serving a guy who commits a vehicular homicide. They're civilly liable if they continued to serve him when he was obviously drunk. I'm sure there have been tort cases charging gun owners with negligence for how a gun was stored. Like if a kid shoots a play date. Abe seems to be suggesting something closer to strict liability or even accomplice criminal liability. That seems a bit crazy.

Yeah I don't agree with holding them liable for just selling it. I think they need to tighten up the laws a bit getting rid of loopholes like gun shows. Then hold dealers liable for not following procedures like background checks if the gun is used in a crime. The idea of holding an individual liable for their own gun is a bit different. Places like Norway require the guns to be locked up and I'd be for something criminal done if the individual was negligent in storing their gun. I'd be very liberal in applying negligence though.

 

[Abraham]

If you impose liability on the seller, that's way beyond anything our legal system does. Can you imagine suing Chrysler for a car accident caused by a bad driver? The effect of that law would be pretty close to getting knocked down on Second Amendment issues dealing with potential purchasers because of the chilling effect on selling firearms, and then you'd be dealing with all the challenges from the sellers, who shouldn't be held liable for failing to diagnose a psychological condition because, you know, they're salespeople, not psychologists.

This goes to the heart of what I'm saying. Laws are doing a lousy job keeping guns away from dangerous people. Why not put that responsibility with the people that should understand responsible gun ownership the best.

 

[badmojo1006]

White House Petition to immediately address Gun Control issues

Currently at 23K

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Abe seems to be suggesting something closer to strict liability or even accomplice criminal liability. That seems a bit crazy.

. I was just throwing it out there, but why is it crazy?

Because it's overbroad. We want gun owners to treat their guns responsibly. A negligence standard gets at that. Strict liability goes well beyond that. It punishes gun owners who do take reasonable precautions (perhaps they have a gun safe which is stolen in break in) and treats them like gun owners who don't take reasonable precautions. I'm particularly opposed to strict liability in the criminal context. It's a growing problem. But even assuming that you mean that criminal negligence should establsh accomplice liability to the underlying crime, I just think it's ridiculuously overbroad. The negligent gun owner has committed a wrong. He hasn't committed a wrong akin to participating in a conspiracy to commit murder. That's a far more chilling expansion of state power than a gun ban, IMO. We're not talking about infringing liberty in the same sense as infringing Constitutional freedoms. We're talking about infringing liberty in the sense of putting people in jail for wacky reasons.

 

[drfeelgood]

Being reported now the recent shooter was 20 years old and mentally ill. We already have laws prevent handgun sales to anyone under 21 or mentally ill. Maybe we need more laws since the current ones work.

The guns were allegedly registered and bought by the mother.

 

[sporthenry]

Abe seems to be suggesting something closer to strict liability or even accomplice criminal liability. That seems a bit crazy.

. I was just throwing it out there, but why is it crazy?

Because it's overbroad. We want gun owners to treat their guns responsibly. A negligence standard gets at that. Strict liability goes well beyond that. It punishes gun owners who do take reasonable precautions (perhaps they have a gun safe which is stolen in break in) and treats them like gun owners who don't take reasonable precautions. I'm particularly opposed to strict liability in the criminal context. It's a growing problem. But even assuming that you mean that criminal negligence should establsh accomplice liability to the underlying crime, I just think it's ridiculuously overbroad. The negligent gun owner has committed a wrong. He hasn't committed a wrong akin to participating in a conspiracy to commit murder. That's a far more chilling expansion of state power than a gun ban, IMO. We're not talking about infringing liberty in the same sense as infringing Constitutional freedoms. We're talking about infringing liberty in the sense of putting people in jail for wacky reasons.

Well I think that should depend upon how negligent the gun owner was. Obviously if it was in a safe and someone stole it, he isn't being very negligent. But if he doesn't take enough precautions, I'd hold him criminally liable. The problem is that the US needs federal rules b/c states like Texas won't do it any other way. They need to close loopholes at gun shows and crack down on straw purchases and hold straw purchasers criminally liable. If someone buy a gun for someone else in a straw purchase, I'd charge them to the fullest extent of the law.

 

[BassNBrew]

Being reported now the recent shooter was 20 years old and mentally ill. We already have laws prevent handgun sales to anyone under 21 or mentally ill. Maybe we need more laws since the current ones work.

The guns were allegedly registered and bought by the mother.

So they were stolen or she illegal gave them to him. I guess Abe can have her body incarcerated.

 

[BassNBrew]

Abe seems to be suggesting something closer to strict liability or even accomplice criminal liability. That seems a bit crazy.

. I was just throwing it out there, but why is it crazy?As a note: (from the West Wing) there are a lot more democrats then NRA members. Why don't all the dems join the NRA and change their platform?Why doesn't the federal government but the five biggest gun manufacturers and get them out of the business of private gun sales ?

I'd comment but you'd ban me.

 

[butcher boy]

I can't think of a good reason why we shouldnt have extremely strict handgun laws. Sorry, but the 2nd amendment and how it was set up to resist government tyranny is not an acceptable defense in 2012. Owning a gun should be a well-earned priviledge. The NRA is a bunch of people trying to use the 2nd amandment as an excuse to defend their hobby of using powerful weapons to hunt animals and/or stationary targets. Fun as that may be for them, it's not deserving of constitutional protection if even one of these tragedies can be prevented by strict legislation.

 

[Abraham]

Being reported now the recent shooter was 20 years old and mentally ill. We already have laws prevent handgun sales to anyone under 21 or mentally ill. Maybe we need more laws since the current ones work.

The guns were allegedly registered and bought by the mother.

So they were stolen or she illegal gave them to him. I guess Abe can have her body incarcerated.

In both cases you mention it seems if she had not been negligent in aecuring them then 28 people (including herself) would be alive.

 

[Abraham]

Abe seems to be suggesting something closer to strict liability or even accomplice criminal liability. That seems a bit crazy.

. I was just throwing it out there, but why is it crazy?As a note: (from the West Wing) there are a lot more democrats then NRA members. Why don't all the dems join the NRA and change their platform?Why doesn't the federal government but the five biggest gun manufacturers and get them out of the business of private gun sales ?

I'd comment but you'd ban me.

No I won't, provided you have something interesting or constructive to say. Fwiw, I'm not sure how we solve gun violence in this country which is why I'm enjoying the discussion.

 

[drfeelgood]

Being reported now the recent shooter was 20 years old and mentally ill. We already have laws prevent handgun sales to anyone under 21 or mentally ill. Maybe we need more laws since the current ones work.

The guns were allegedly registered and bought by the mother.

So they were stolen or she illegal gave them to him. I guess Abe can have her body incarcerated.

In both cases you mention it seems if she had not been negligent in aecuring them then 28 people (including herself) would be alive.

How was she negligent?

 

[SacramentoBob]

Being reported now the recent shooter was 20 years old and mentally ill. We already have laws prevent handgun sales to anyone under 21 or mentally ill. Maybe we need more laws since the current ones work.

The guns were allegedly registered and bought by the mother.

So they were stolen or she illegal gave them to him. I guess Abe can have her body incarcerated.

In both cases you mention it seems if she had not been negligent in aecuring them then 28 people (including herself) would be alive.

How was she negligent?

They weren't secured under 100 tons of concrete.

 

[BassNBrew]

I can't think of a good reason why we shouldnt have extremely strict handgun laws. Sorry, but the 2nd amendment and how it was set up to resist government tyranny is not an acceptable defense in 2012. Owning a gun should be a well-earned priviledge. The NRA is a bunch of people trying to use the 2nd amandment as an excuse to defend their hobby of using powerful weapons to hunt animals and/or stationary targets. Fun as that may be for them, it's not deserving of constitutional protection if even one of these tragedies can be prevented by strict legislation.

Willing to apply that to alcohol too?

 

[sporthenry]

Being reported now the recent shooter was 20 years old and mentally ill. We already have laws prevent handgun sales to anyone under 21 or mentally ill. Maybe we need more laws since the current ones work.

The guns were allegedly registered and bought by the mother.

So they were stolen or she illegal gave them to him. I guess Abe can have her body incarcerated.

Well they could have been hers and he stole them which would lend more credence to the idea that owners should have to lock up thir guns. But yes, she is liabe. Wiconsin has a law that it is illegal to have a gun within the reach of a child. This is probably worst case scenario for gun rights owner bc now they can't hide behind the illegal obtaining of guns.

 

[BassNBrew]

Being reported now the recent shooter was 20 years old and mentally ill. We already have laws prevent handgun sales to anyone under 21 or mentally ill. Maybe we need more laws since the current ones work.

The guns were allegedly registered and bought by the mother.

So they were stolen or she illegal gave them to him. I guess Abe can have her body incarcerated.

In both cases you mention it seems if she had not been negligent in aecuring them then 28 people (including herself) would be alive.

I guess we'll find out at some point in time. The scenarios are too numerous to grasp right now.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Being reported now the recent shooter was 20 years old and mentally ill. We already have laws prevent handgun sales to anyone under 21 or mentally ill. Maybe we need more laws since the current ones work.

The guns were allegedly registered and bought by the mother.

So they were stolen or she illegal gave them to him. I guess Abe can have her body incarcerated.

Well they could have been hers and he stole them which would lend more credence to the idea that owners should have to lock up thir guns. But yes, she is liabe. Wiconsin has a law that it is illegal to have a gun within the reach of a child. This is probably worst case scenario for gun rights owner bc now they can't hide behind the illegal obtaining of guns.

How do you know they weren't locked up? Is 20 years old a child?

 

[RCon]

So anger and questioning God are not appropriate emotions and thoughts today?

Not trying to offend, but your posts display a high level of anger every day.

 

[drfeelgood]

Being reported now the recent shooter was 20 years old and mentally ill. We already have laws prevent handgun sales to anyone under 21 or mentally ill. Maybe we need more laws since the current ones work.

The guns were allegedly registered and bought by the mother.

So they were stolen or she illegal gave them to him. I guess Abe can have her body incarcerated.

Well they could have been hers and he stole them which would lend more credence to the idea that owners should have to lock up thir guns. But yes, she is liabe. Wiconsin has a law that it is illegal to have a gun within the reach of a child. This is probably worst case scenario for gun rights owner bc now they can't hide behind the illegal obtaining of guns.

Her son was 20. That is the age of an adult.

 

[Abraham]

Being reported now the recent shooter was 20 years old and mentally ill. We already have laws prevent handgun sales to anyone under 21 or mentally ill. Maybe we need more laws since the current ones work.

The guns were allegedly registered and bought by the mother.

So they were stolen or she illegal gave them to him. I guess Abe can have her body incarcerated.

In both cases you mention it seems if she had not been negligent in aecuring them then 28 people (including herself) would be alive.

How was she negligent?

If they were her guns and he got them then she either didn't have them secured or she gave him access.

 

[Ilov80s]

I can't think of a good reason why we shouldnt have extremely strict handgun laws. Sorry, but the 2nd amendment and how it was set up to resist government tyranny is not an acceptable defense in 2012. Owning a gun should be a well-earned priviledge. The NRA is a bunch of people trying to use the 2nd amandment as an excuse to defend their hobby of using powerful weapons to hunt animals and/or stationary targets. Fun as that may be for them, it's not deserving of constitutional protection if even one of these tragedies can be prevented by strict legislation.

Willing to apply that to alcohol too?

To be fair, we already have that applied to alcohol. There is no Constitutional right to drink alcohol.

 

[BassNBrew]

Being reported now the recent shooter was 20 years old and mentally ill. We already have laws prevent handgun sales to anyone under 21 or mentally ill. Maybe we need more laws since the current ones work.

The guns were allegedly registered and bought by the mother.

So they were stolen or she illegal gave them to him. I guess Abe can have her body incarcerated.

Well they could have been hers and he stole them which would lend more credence to the idea that owners should have to lock up thir guns. But yes, she is liabe. Wiconsin has a law that it is illegal to have a gun within the reach of a child. This is probably worst case scenario for gun rights owner bc now they can't hide behind the illegal obtaining of guns.

I wonder if 20 yo is considered a child in this instance...meaning under the age of 21, not any ref to the mental issue.

 

[sporthenry]

Being reported now the recent shooter was 20 years old and mentally ill. We already have laws prevent handgun sales to anyone under 21 or mentally ill. Maybe we need more laws since the current ones work.

The guns were allegedly registered and bought by the mother.

So they were stolen or she illegal gave them to him. I guess Abe can have her body incarcerated.

Well they could have been hers and he stole them which would lend more credence to the idea that owners should have to lock up thir guns. But yes, she is liabe. Wiconsin has a law that it is illegal to have a gun within the reach of a child. This is probably worst case scenario for gun rights owner bc now they can't hide behind the illegal obtaining of guns.

How do you know they weren't locked up? Is 20 years old a child?

You are right. I don't know but you don't know they were locked either. Odds are, he knew where the guns were and probably the keys if it was locked, so effectively they weren't locked. And mentally he might still be a child. But my main point was that there are laws that require gun owners to be responsible. Why just stop at kids?

 

[drfeelgood]

Being reported now the recent shooter was 20 years old and mentally ill. We already have laws prevent handgun sales to anyone under 21 or mentally ill. Maybe we need more laws since the current ones work.

The guns were allegedly registered and bought by the mother.

So they were stolen or she illegal gave them to him. I guess Abe can have her body incarcerated.

In both cases you mention it seems if she had not been negligent in aecuring them then 28 people (including herself) would be alive.

How was she negligent?

If they were her guns and he got them then she either didn't have them secured or she gave him access.

He was 20 years old. You can legally buy a gun at age 18 in CT.

 

[BassNBrew]

I can't think of a good reason why we shouldnt have extremely strict handgun laws. Sorry, but the 2nd amendment and how it was set up to resist government tyranny is not an acceptable defense in 2012. Owning a gun should be a well-earned priviledge. The NRA is a bunch of people trying to use the 2nd amandment as an excuse to defend their hobby of using powerful weapons to hunt animals and/or stationary targets. Fun as that may be for them, it's not deserving of constitutional protection if even one of these tragedies can be prevented by strict legislation.

Willing to apply that to alcohol too?

To be fair, we already have that applied to alcohol. There is no Constitutional right to drink alcohol.

We have much stricter gun laws than alcohol laws. I would agrue that we have a constitutional right to drink at this time since it took prohibition to outlaw it.

 

[Mr.Pack]

Based on your argument, nothing should be illegal because people do it anyway. Heroin, rape, murder, fraud, assault - people do all of them. Just like people would break gun laws. The fact that people break laws is an awful defense to your position that the law shouldn't exist. It's nonsensical. And it's all you've got.

Isn't that one of the primary arguments for legalizing drugs?

The only drug people are seriously arguing should be legal is marijuana. That's because it's less harmful than other drugs we already legalize, not because people do it. Nobody's arguing that meth should be legal. People are arguing that assault rifles should be legal though, so that's what we're talking about in here. Try to stay on subject.

Maybe try reading before posting. We can try and type slower for you if need be.

Any particular reason you always come off as a ######## in these types of threads?

My stalker is back! I wouldn't expect you to catch the jab he gave me. Just keep on following me and throwing #### my way. It's what you're good at.

 

[BassNBrew]

Being reported now the recent shooter was 20 years old and mentally ill. We already have laws prevent handgun sales to anyone under 21 or mentally ill. Maybe we need more laws since the current ones work.

The guns were allegedly registered and bought by the mother.

So they were stolen or she illegal gave them to him. I guess Abe can have her body incarcerated.

In both cases you mention it seems if she had not been negligent in aecuring them then 28 people (including herself) would be alive.

How was she negligent?

If they were her guns and he got them then she either didn't have them secured or she gave him access.

He was 20 years old. You can legally buy a gun at age 18 in CT.

Not a hand gun.

 

[RCon]

Can someone please explain why the people who believe that you should carry loaded weapons anywhere you want feel the need to have them concealed. I mean if you are the "law abiding responsible" citizen that you claim to be then why are you worried about hiding it? And if the purpose of arming everyone like a ####### video game wouldn't you want then to actually see the weapon to make them think twice?If you want to treat this world like a first person shooter game that is fine by me but don't hide it from us. Let us know that you have a loaded weapon in the bar, library, church, and school so I can get the #### away from you

Well, the point of concealed carry laws is so that the bad guy doesn't know if he's near someone carrying. If we require all armed citizens to display a sign or otherwise show they are armed, then someone intent on doing harm can simply keep looking for locations where no citizens are displaying that they are armed. The idea is that it's a deterrent.

 

[Mr.Pack]

Based on your argument, nothing should be illegal because people do it anyway. Heroin, rape, murder, fraud, assault - people do all of them. Just like people would break gun laws. The fact that people break laws is an awful defense to your position that the law shouldn't exist. It's nonsensical. And it's all you've got.

Isn't that one of the primary arguments for legalizing drugs?

The only drug people are seriously arguing should be legal is marijuana. That's because it's less harmful than other drugs we already legalize, not because people do it. Nobody's arguing that meth should be legal. People are arguing that assault rifles should be legal though, so that's what we're talking about in here. Try to stay on subject.

Maybe try reading before posting. We can try and type slower for you if need be.

Any particular reason you always come off as a ######## in these types of threads?

 

[Bonezerelli]

But the evidence that gun ownership leads to higher homicide or suicide rates is pretty shaky. There are more accidental deaths by firearm, but the overall number is still pretty small. (All IIRC from the last time I looked at this.)

It should also be noted that approximately 52 million households have a gun (in 2007. couldn't find more recent info) THat same year, there were approximately 100,000 shootings (both lethal and non-lethal, intentional and accidental, and suicides) Assuming a separate person committed each shooting (which we all know was not the case), that means, only .19% of the households with guns were in involved in a shooting.

1 shooing is too many. Justifying it with a % means little to me. 20 kids were shot. That is like .00003% of the children in the country, so I guess this isn't a big deal.

As some #####e commented on a friends sympathy post, "D. Wesley Leek-Nobody's life is worth my freedom to carry guns. And Israel has students and teach carry guns at school and they have zero shootings. MORE GUNS LESS CRIME!!!"

Good god....how is it possible for people to make such assinine conclusions.A whole paradigm shift is needed here. But it just isn't going to happen

 

[Abraham]

Well, the point of concealed carry laws is so that the bad guy doesn't know if he's near someone carrying. If we require all armed citizens to display a sign or otherwise show they are armed, then someone intent on doing harm can simply keep looking for locations where no citizens are displaying that they are armed. The idea is that it's a deterrent.

No it isn't. The point of concealed handgun laws is to satisfy the want of the carrier with the perception of those around them. People at the grocery store largely don't want to see the guy next to them with a revolver on his hip. Concealing the weapon also prevents the unintended use (or theft) of it by someone around them. There is a reason there are more marked police cars than unmarked. It's much more of a deterrent to see a policeman than not. Police want to prevent crime which is why they are obvious. If they wanted to catch criminals there would be only undercover and plain clothes cops.

 

[Ilov80s]

I can't think of a good reason why we shouldnt have extremely strict handgun laws. Sorry, but the 2nd amendment and how it was set up to resist government tyranny is not an acceptable defense in 2012. Owning a gun should be a well-earned priviledge. The NRA is a bunch of people trying to use the 2nd amandment as an excuse to defend their hobby of using powerful weapons to hunt animals and/or stationary targets. Fun as that may be for them, it's not deserving of constitutional protection if even one of these tragedies can be prevented by strict legislation.

Willing to apply that to alcohol too?

To be fair, we already have that applied to alcohol. There is no Constitutional right to drink alcohol.

We have much stricter gun laws than alcohol laws. I would agrue that we have a constitutional right to drink at this time since it took prohibition to outlaw it.

Prohibition did not make drinking illegal. It made making, transporting and selling alcohol illegal. Also, it did not "take" an amendment to outlaw it. We have no amendment outlawing marijuana or other drugs.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Being reported now the recent shooter was 20 years old and mentally ill. We already have laws prevent handgun sales to anyone under 21 or mentally ill. Maybe we need more laws since the current ones work.

The guns were allegedly registered and bought by the mother.

So they were stolen or she illegal gave them to him. I guess Abe can have her body incarcerated.

Well they could have been hers and he stole them which would lend more credence to the idea that owners should have to lock up thir guns. But yes, she is liabe. Wiconsin has a law that it is illegal to have a gun within the reach of a child. This is probably worst case scenario for gun rights owner bc now they can't hide behind the illegal obtaining of guns.

How do you know they weren't locked up? Is 20 years old a child?

You are right. I don't know but you don't know they were locked either. Odds are, he knew where the guns were and probably the keys if it was locked, so effectively they weren't locked. And mentally he might still be a child. But my main point was that there are laws that require gun owners to be responsible. Why just stop at kids?

I never claimed to know anything. You are making guesses which make you feel best about your world view.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I can't think of a good reason why we shouldnt have extremely strict handgun laws. Sorry, but the 2nd amendment and how it was set up to resist government tyranny is not an acceptable defense in 2012. Owning a gun should be a well-earned priviledge. The NRA is a bunch of people trying to use the 2nd amandment as an excuse to defend their hobby of using powerful weapons to hunt animals and/or stationary targets. Fun as that may be for them, it's not deserving of constitutional protection if even one of these tragedies can be prevented by strict legislation.

Willing to apply that to alcohol too?

To be fair, we already have that applied to alcohol. There is no Constitutional right to drink alcohol.

We have much stricter gun laws than alcohol laws. I would agrue that we have a constitutional right to drink at this time since it took prohibition to outlaw it.

Prohibition did not make drinking illegal. It made making, transporting and selling alcohol illegal. Also, it did not "take" an amendment to outlaw it. We have no amendment outlawing marijuana or other drugs.

I guess I learned about the 18th Amendment for nothing.

 

[sporthenry]

Being reported now the recent shooter was 20 years old and mentally ill. We already have laws prevent handgun sales to anyone under 21 or mentally ill. Maybe we need more laws since the current ones work.

The guns were allegedly registered and bought by the mother.

So they were stolen or she illegal gave them to him. I guess Abe can have her body incarcerated.

Well they could have been hers and he stole them which would lend more credence to the idea that owners should have to lock up thir guns. But yes, she is liabe. Wiconsin has a law that it is illegal to have a gun within the reach of a child. This is probably worst case scenario for gun rights owner bc now they can't hide behind the illegal obtaining of guns.

How do you know they weren't locked up? Is 20 years old a child?

You are right. I don't know but you don't know they were locked either. Odds are, he knew where the guns were and probably the keys if it was locked, so effectively they weren't locked. And mentally he might still be a child. But my main point was that there are laws that require gun owners to be responsible. Why just stop at kids?

I never claimed to know anything. You are making guesses which make you feel best about your world view.

That or just using common sense here. How many people do you actually think lock up their guns? I have an opinion sure. We'll see what happens when all the details emerge but at this point, I'll operate under the general constraint that the mother didn't do all she could to keep guns out of her son's hands.

 

[BassNBrew]

Well, the point of concealed carry laws is so that the bad guy doesn't know if he's near someone carrying. If we require all armed citizens to display a sign or otherwise show they are armed, then someone intent on doing harm can simply keep looking for locations where no citizens are displaying that they are armed. The idea is that it's a deterrent.

No it isn't. The point of concealed handgun laws is to satisfy the want of the carrier with the perception of those around them. People at the grocery store largely don't want to see the guy next to them with a revolver on his hip. Concealing the weapon also prevents the unintended use (or theft) of it by someone around them. There is a reason there are more marked police cars than unmarked. It's much more of a deterrent to see a policeman than not. Police want to prevent crime which is why they are obvious. If they wanted to catch criminals there would be only undercover and plain clothes cops.

To expand on this further....once you get that permit in many situations by law you have to keep the gun concealed and can no longer openly carry.

 

[Mr.Pack]

Seems like Israel does a pretty good job of dealing with guns based on that article, which is the only thing I know about their gun policy. Guns are not evil, but I think it's clear that as a country we're doing something wrong compared to the rest of the world that doesn't seem to have this shooting problem that we do.

Well look here, we have the same views and you didn't even have to be a jag about it.

 

[lod01]

Have you guys covered the part where supposedly the guns belonged to the mom, a teacher and apparently model citizen. Do you have the solution for that scenario yet? You know, where a bat ### crazy son gets hold of the guns and commits a mass murder? Yeah, didn't think so. No gun control stops this one. Period.

 

[Abraham]

Have you guys covered the part where supposedly the guns belonged to the mom, a teacher and apparently model citizen. Do you have the solution for that scenario yet? You know, where a bat ### crazy son gets hold of the guns and commits a mass murder? Yeah, didn't think so. No gun control stops this one. Period.

You already know how the son got a hold of the guns?

 

[lod01]

Have you guys covered the part where supposedly the guns belonged to the mom, a teacher and apparently model citizen. Do you have the solution for that scenario yet? You know, where a bat ### crazy son gets hold of the guns and commits a mass murder? Yeah, didn't think so. No gun control stops this one. Period.

You already know how the son got a hold of the guns?

If the media has that part correct, he shot his mom in the face with her guns first. If that is indeed correct, you have no solution for it and thus this debate is worthless.I am no fan of these guns that were apparently used but gun control won't solve ####. The phrase if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns is true.