To clarify to me what you're essentially saying is we want to create a list of people who have a target on their backs because they carry a gun or own one. Now that we have a list of them for people to target, essentially if a crime is committed against them, then they're essentially criminals now. You're basically criminalizing people for what they own. Which is I suppose "fine" if you want to just say "ban all guns", but just in essence a law that says you're a criminal if someone shoots you takes your gun and shoots someone else, that is a slippery slope...
As long as killing is framed as entertainment for young developing minds all it will take for a hormonal teen to snap could be a bully, a lover leaving, any number of insecurities...teens usually don't handle trauma well or stress. Not saying adults do but a 15-16 year old snapping could happen in a nano second ...not everyone is well adjusted to begin with ...if theres a gun around and ammo then gun control isn't working for this kid....access is too easy. No teen should need to own a hand gun for any reason in my view. I didn't allow it around as a parent.
I don’t follow the list part. I am saying that guns are registered to the owner. If one day that gun gets taken from the home and used to mow down some 8th graders, that gun owner has life in prison. It’s not a huge deal. If someone uses the gun in a robbery, the owner gets charged with a felony robbery. These aren’t crazy. And there have been instances when a kid takes dads gun and the dad gets in trouble. Not enough. So, for guns that are stolen, well, how does it get stolen if it’s safely locked away unless the owner is carrying it. If he’s carrying it legally, and he gets mugged, he would call the police and there would be a report. He’d be only partially responsible.
There have been over 2,000,000 guns that were reported stolen in the last 10 years...and that does not account for the ones that were not reported.
Well, like I've asked/alluded to before, how do you account for the disproportionate number of incidents in the US as opposed to other countries? But it is however, that you finally admit there are other factors out there other than gun laws alone.
Wait a minute, we were talking about stopping "criminals" from acquiring weapons, not the average Joe.
And how do you propose to do that? If a person wants a gun, the law will not stop him from getting one. And the fact that there are ways to acquire a firearm illegally as opposed to legally has been proven over and over partly because the people who sell them illegally don't care about the law because, well, they're criminals.
That's a problem when they become criminal after the fact - as happened with this kid. If it was harder for this kid to gain access to the gun - there is a good chance this tragedy would not have happened.
The issue in this case, it sounds like, was that the owner got it legally - but his son had access to the gun because it was not protected properly. So, a good place to start is to have gun registration and ownership responsibility - with the need to report guns stolen as one does with cars. Clearly, guns are too easy to get access to in this country - and there is no meaningful legislation to proper handling and care of said guns. I am certain that if there are laws that keep responsibility with the registered owners - there is a good chance guns will be better handled and kept out of the hands of minors like in this case. It is not going to solve all the instances, but it should help to solve some.
No, I think you are completely missing what I'm referring to....I'm talking about the "criminals" who sell weapons illegally to whoever is willing to pay for them.
It's entirely reasonable to assume that I missed something coming mid-discussion. If we are taking about the people the sell guns illegally - other than increasing the punishment for this crime hoping it acts as a deterrent - not much you can do with legal tools, I would agree to that.
Like I pointed out earlier, there are over 350,000,000 guns in the US and over 2,000,000 that have been reported stolen in the last 10 years, not counting the one that were not reported stolen. I still contend that the main problem is not so much with the availability of guns but instead the people who are the emotionally/mentally bankrupt individuals who were prompted by the demons in their heads to commit these horrible crimes. The huge discrepancy between these type crimes in the US as opposed to other countries also with a large number of firearms is IMO, predicated on differences in culture.
Mandatory buyback of assault weapons is a no brainier. The main culture problem we have is with the people that are against that. Less guns = less deaths.
Yeah, but them SOBs already don't give a rip...many of them have already spent much of their lives behind bars and don't really mind if they are sent back to jail or not. IMO, part of the problem is that prisons are too nice....meals, TV, internet, medical care, etc. all for free with no work required,...bring back the old chain gangs as far as I'm concerned.
The youngster who created yesterday's scenario used a hand gun, not an assault rifle. And how would we enforce a "mandatory buyback"?
Fines would be the easy way. After a certain point I wouldn't be against more severe punishment. People who refused would indeed be criminals.
Mass shootings are a very small percentage of gun deaths. Assault weapons are used in a very small percentage of gun deaths. The biggest target should be unregistered guns, stolen guns and increasing penalties for possession. I advocate a military taskforce be used to track illegals guns and get them off the street. Mandatory minimums for posession of illegal guns. Assault weapons are fine if they only are given to the most qualified. All guns should be handled like that. Only the supremely qualified and vetted.
OK, I'll bite. Exactly how can you determine who may have illegal/banned weapons if they never turn them in? And fines don't stop people from speeding or driving drunk, etc.
