Notice: This is an old thread. The last post was 353 days ago. If your post is not directly related to this discussion please consider making a new thread.
December 19th, 2012 08:57 AM
Yeah, those folks usually aren't criminals. The point being, the bad guys are going to get there guns no matter what. All the laws and restrictions one can dream of will not prevent the bad guys from getting guns and killing people. So why we are trying to solve the problem by restricting the law abiding citizens? We don't make it hard for adults to buy alcohol when somebody drinks and drives and kills somebody, or otherwise hurts somebody under the influence. Alcohol and drugs cause more violence in this country than guns ever will. How many gun related deaths happen because somebody is drunk or high on drugs? Maybe if we stopped putting people in jail for using drugs and spent that money on rehabilitation, mental health, etc., we'd probably have a dramatic decrease in crime all the way around.
The solution to the problem isn't banning guns, it's better mental health care, it's better schools, better, more responsible parents, a better society. You combine violent video games where kids mindless kill for hours, violent movies that make it seem cool to kill everything, the hip hop and rap culture that promote the thug life, guns, money, expensive shit that 98% of these kids can't afford, etc., your going to have a lot of problems with kids. More and more kids do not have respect for anybody but themselves. If they want something, they want it right ****ing now and they feel they're entitled to it.
The family structure in this country isn't anything like it was 25 plus years ago. Parents have stopped being parents and have started to try and be their kids' best friends. Teachers and school officials can't discipline the kids in their school because of fear of lawsuits and the thought process parents have of "not my kid(s)", it must be the teacher, or somebody or something else. This society no longer takes responsibility for its actions, instead we look to blame others, or other things, for our problems. That's what is happening with the reaction to guns. We can't blame society, mental health, the criminal justice system, the lack treatment options, parents, the education system, the entertainment industry, ourselves, etc. No, it's all the fault of the gun. People seem to forget that a gun will not harm a single person lying on a table all by itself. If nobody picks up that gun, it's not going to hurt anybody. It takes a human being picking up that gun, aiming it and pulling the trigger. The first question to ask is not why does the person have a gun, it's what caused that person to use that gun.
Crazy and evil will always live amongst us. We will never be able to stop all of them from doing horrible shit but if we had a better system in place to recognize the behavior of these people and do something to either help them or remove them from society then that will go a lot further in preventing these mass killings from happening.
Kansas, the state I live in, has concealed carry. 57,000 plus have received their license since 2007. .09% have been charged with a crime using a gun. Law abiding gun owners very rarely commit crimes.
December 19th, 2012 09:10 AM
Gun shops already vet people, it's call the background check. Holding them liable for selling a gun to somebody who passed all the required backgrounds checks? You think that's going to fly? Why not hold the liquor store owner responsible for selling alcohol to someone who ends up getting drunk and beating their wife or kids, or commits any other crime while under the influence?
As a society, we get to decide these checks and balances. You could make it to where a gun shop is liable for crimes committed with its guns by the purchaser only, and not anyone beyond that. That wouldn't be super unreasonable, and it would encourage gun shops to really vet people.
correct. If a gun shop owner doesn't follow the law, then sure, they should be punished.
Typically, though, it's not the responsible gun shop owners that are putting guns in the wrong hands, though. So that might not be the smartest peopel to target with liability.
December 19th, 2012 09:21 AM
Like I said in my post above, don't act so incredulous. We already do some of these things. And liquor stores ARE held responsible if they, say, sell liquor to someone drunk.
The potential idea is: we want gun shop owners to not sell to legal, but shady, characters just to make a buck, even though they are uneasy about the purchaser.
December 19th, 2012 09:33 AM
I'm not talking about the ones that are already drunk. I'm talking about the average Joe who comes in and buys a case of beer for the weekend, gets drunk and beats his wife or commits a crime while under the influence of the case of beer he bought earlier.
I'm sure a lot already do. Most business owners have the right to refuse service.
December 19th, 2012 09:44 AM
Well sure. We just want to make sure they DO that when they should.
But like I said- I'm not so sure the point of attack for any new laws or regulation is on gun store owners. Let's start with gun SHOWS, and go from there.
December 19th, 2012 10:09 AM
Like I mentioned earlier, liability could be removed by processing he background check. If one is going to privately sell a gun, or avoid a check, then they retain liability.
December 19th, 2012 10:10 AM
“I had a lot of bad people after me and I carried a gun every place I went. . . But for me, guns are more than that. In fact, the most important part of guns as far as I’m concerned in my personal life is the recreational aspect of guns.” Harry Reid, 2010
December 19th, 2012 10:11 AM
Just make it a presumptive, not automatic, removal of liability, and you're home IMO.
December 19th, 2012 10:16 AM
One point of confusion for me--why are we using the recent mass murder as a jumping off point to start a debate on something that wouldn't have had any impact on the mass murder?
December 19th, 2012 10:18 AM
How do we know that?
Perhaps if mommy had known about such liability, she would have stored her firearms in a more secure manner.
December 19th, 2012 10:25 AM
I don't have any problems with requiring private sales to go through somebody with a FFL. I've heard talk about buying guns on the internet with no checks whatsoever. Whoever states that is a ****ing liar. All internet sales must go through somebody with a FFL. The store ships the gun to the FFL holder. You go to the FFL to pick up your gun, fill out the paperwork, just like you do when buying in a store. The FFL calls the same number the gun store people do and if you're cleared, you take the gun home.
If it's a private sale, then this will help you understand what has to be done:
December 19th, 2012 10:30 AM
I think if mom had survived this situation, she would be held liable considering, it appears by recent reports, that she knew her son was dangerous and was trying to have him committed.
December 19th, 2012 10:31 AM
I have bought my last two guns at the High Caliber Gun Show in Houston. I paid cash, and flashed the guy my ID (he explicitly stated he did not want to look at it long enough to know my name...same reason he would not take plastic...he just wanted to see it was a TX ID, and it had my picture on it)
I like buying from guys like him, because they have the best selection of used guns, and they are far more flexible on pricing.
December 19th, 2012 10:31 AM
She didn't sell them or give them to him. He stole them and shot her in the face. Are we going to pass a law that makes you liable if someone steals your gun and shoots you in the face with it? That seems like piling on a bit to me.
December 19th, 2012 10:39 AM
How do you know that she didn't give them to him?
A report last night indicated that she had taken him several times to the range for shooting practice, so we know that at some point she was fine with the kid possessing one or more of her firearms.
There is a difference in liability if your kid hot wires your car and and mows into someone than if your kid that you feel should be involuntary committed gets in your car with the keys in it and does the same thing.
Were her guns secure? (Obviously not) this is the basis for my POV.
December 19th, 2012 10:40 AM
We'll actually never know. Perhaps they were.
December 19th, 2012 10:46 AM
There is no perhaps..either she wanted him to have them or they weren't properly secured.
December 19th, 2012 10:52 AM
Of course there is a perhaps. We don't know that she didn't have trigger locks on them, or that they weren't in a safe (unless there was no safe in the home.) We don't know what he did to gain control of the weapons. She could have had them hidden and he tore the home apart to find them. Maybe she had them locked up and he threatened her with a knife or a bat to get them--telling her he was leaving and he was going to sell the guns to get money or something. There are an almost infinite number of 'perhaps.'
December 19th, 2012 10:56 AM
Compromised security is ineffective security...see your TSA arguments.
December 19th, 2012 10:58 AM
Maybe it's just in oklahoma, but any time I've bought a gun at a gun show used or new, i had to have a background check.
December 19th, 2012 11:05 AM
Gun shows are primarily stocked with licensed dealers, they have to do background checks regardless of location. There are a few tables at every show, however that are manned by "private sellers" in general, these guys only will have used firearms on their table and nothing else. I am unsure if TX not requiring registration makes this more frequent or not.
OK registration probably limits this because of paperwork that must be filled out for registration transfer, enabling officials to more readily track the number of firearms sold by an individual, this determines he sellers status as private or dealer.
The following users like this post:
December 19th, 2012 11:07 AM
No arguments that it was ineffective. Your argument was that the guns weren't secured.
There is a middle ground. She could have had them secure, and her measures were ineffective. That doesn't mean she wanted him to have them.
December 19th, 2012 11:14 AM
I said "properly" secured. The method of security obviously wasn't proper if he got them.
December 19th, 2012 11:17 AM
Okay. But that's still a far cry from her wanting him to have them. We're debating semantics now though, which is pointless. We can agree that we don't know what security measures she had in place, and we can also agree that they weren't effective because he got her guns. Hopefully soon we'll know what she had in place so that people can learn from her mistakes.
December 19th, 2012 11:20 AM
December 19th, 2012 12:44 PM
I agree with most everything you say in this post.
I think there are some things that could be done, that would appease both sides of this argument. Why not do like the Swiss and have very tight control over the ammunition? After all, when shooting for fun, you go to the range anyway. Why not make the ammo sold at ranges, and have it mandatory that it is used at ranges? Of course, some adjustments could be made for home protection weapons, and hunting, etc. You argue that the solution isn't banning guns, its healthcare, it's better schools, better, more responsible parents, a better society. I agree somewhat. I think it is all of these, as is the same in other countries. Our country has guns and endless ammunition available everywhere. There is no argument against working toward better healthcare, better schools, better society, etc. and there are people that help those in need for a living. Switzerland as an example has all of these problems just like we do, but they have effectively - not completely - taken away possibilities for troubled people to perform mass murders using guns.
I think this would work in the US.
December 19th, 2012 04:38 PM
Switzerland has a population of 7.9 million people. We have 311 million people with 80 million legal gun owners and approximately 300 million guns. We have an untold amount of people who illegally have guns and untold amount of illegal guns. What works in Switzerland isn't going to work here and it would not stop murders from happening. Again, why are we punishing/restricting the law abiding citizens for the actions of the criminal?
December 19th, 2012 05:02 PM
Well certainly it would be a large undertaking, and there is already a lot of ammo that is available, so that would pose an issue but it is something that could be considered and weighed upon. As I said it is not 100% effective, nothing is. Even in Switzerland there is still the possibility of a mass shooting, but not nearly as likely as here. It is something that would take time to implement and take full effect, but if it was spearheaded and made an agenda at the state level, it could be effective. Authority figures would still have plenty of ammo and guns. Some licenses could allow more ammo for guns. Other changes could be made, too.
And I would call it inconveniencing more than punishing.
December 19th, 2012 09:31 PM
Its punishing, plain and simple. And it would never work.
December 21st, 2012 06:59 PM
December 21st, 2012 07:07 PM
What exactly are you referring to when you state that Switzerland is "the world's banking country?"
December 21st, 2012 08:26 PM
Or how about because just about every able-bodied male is in their military. Hence the full-auto rifles they get to keep.
December 21st, 2012 09:24 PM
December 25th, 2012 04:01 PM
You are wrong, in the right part of the internet you can buy anything for a price. Some people estimate that 80% of the internet is hidden to causal users and is referred to as the deep web. Learn more about it here;
December 25th, 2012 04:51 PM
Last edited by soonerintn; July 20th, 2013 at 12:58 AM.