Elementary school shooting gun control pissing contest

[derspiess]

There is a substantial difference between a private sale between you and I,

Not to be pedantic but a transfer between you & me would have to go through an FFL since we live in different states.

and someone who knows they'd fail a background check going to a gun show with an exhibition hall full of non-FFL dealers as a one-stop shop to purchase firearms knowing they wouldn't get a background check.  That's what closing the loophole is all about, reducing the opportunity for those who shouldn't get guns from getting them easier.

I've been to many gun shows and I've never seen an exhibition hall full of non-FFL dealers.  I think it's silly to say I can sell a gun to someone via classified ad or gun auction site or whatnot, but I can't do so in a building where a gun show happens to be taking place.

To say that shutting down the gun show issue wouldn't stop someone from getting a gun is akin to 11B's "You can kill somebody with macrame needles and an ironing board, too" logic.  It's bullshit.

Nopers.  Shutting down the "loophole" will not prevent anyone from getting a gun if they really want one.  There are many other ways to do that.  You might as well just restrict private sales altogether to accomplish what you're after. 

[PDH]

HEY, INEVER SAID THAT. 

You could put someone's eye with those bastards.

[11B4V]

Why are the "gun nuts™" on here offering up control measures and you "anti-gun nutters™" arent?

[Razgovory]

It's called a rear guard action.

[11B4V]

It's called a rear guard action.

If y'all lets us set the policy, np.

[Queequeg]

John Holmes

I'd be surprised if John Holmes ever felt the need to over-compensate.

[CountDeMoney]

You might as well just restrict private sales altogether to accomplish what you're after.

I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

All gun shows should be restricted to FFL dealers, or no private sales without mandatory background checks.  Works for plenty of states like California and New York, where last I heard guns were not in short supply and the ability to purchase them was still robust, so it should not be a problem with all 50, including that inbred shithole you live in.

[Martinus]

Incidentally, I wonder if anyone has ever compiled statistics on what percentage of shooters already own guns beforehand and what percentage go out to buy one after devising the plan to start a shoot out.

I think it would be an interesting factor as to whether background/psych checks at the moment of purchase are enough or whether all gun owners should undergo these from time to time.

[Martinus]

Quick google search reveals that at least the Colombine, Virginia Tech and Batman cinema shooters all bought guns shortly before the deed.

[Martinus]

On this note, I wonder if a somewhat sideline approach - of introducing the obligation of the gun owner/vendor to exercise due diligence in making sure the person they give/sell the gun to is not a nut - coupled with the civil (tort) liability for any damage caused by the nut in question if the owner/vendor cannot prove due diligence was exercised - would not do the trick. This would seriously discourage people from selling guns outside of licensed dealers, while at the same time not banning it per se.

[Berkut]

Is it true that you are a lawyer?

[Berkut]

I am no gun nut.

I don't think the 2nd Amendment protects anyone's "right" to own a handgun.

Even if it did, I would argue that it is a stupid "right", and should be repealed. The right to tote around a gun is NOT, IMO, a fundamental human right, or necessary to a free society. This is easily proven by noting that there are plenty of perfectly free societies that function quite well without the citizens therein being allowed to pack a gun.

All that being said, gun control won't stop things like this from happening. No amount of it that is realistically possible in the US today will make any difference. There are already too many guns, and too ingrained of a culture to matter in any meaningful manner.

[Martim Silva]

All that being said, gun control won't stop things like this from happening. No amount of it that is realistically possible in the US today will make any difference. There are already too many guns, and too ingrained of a culture to matter in any meaningful manner.

I'm not sure.

A great many of these attackers (like this one, or the Batman movie one) are kids who got their guns the easy way (the school guy even got his mommy to get him his), and I suspect that, in a regulated enviroment, they would not know where to go to get an illegal weapon. They'd probably be afraid to go to the illegal gun dealers.

Yes, a gun ban won't prevent criminals/determined guys from getting guns, but then again:

1 - Criminals want to use their guns for crimes. That often means robberies and the like, not going into a school, killing a bunch of kids and then turning the gun on themselves.

2 - Determined guys more often want guns for protection/bawl at them; few would really be the type to go on a killing spree.

Take me as an example: though Portugal has all guns ultra-banned, I got my Walther PPK and ammo from an illegal dealer. I'm a prime example that gun laws don't stop determined folks to get them. On the other hand, I also had the brains to know how to get it, and those very same brains tell me doing this kind of shit is incredibly stupid and cowardly; i'll never do anything like that. But we don't get kids going around shooting schools and cinemas, just the occasional well-organized robber gang.

Basically, what I mean is: tight gun laws prevent stupid kids (and their dumb parents) from getting guns. And those are usually the types that make these massacres.

[Fate]

What if the teachers were allowed to carry guns? I think this would have turned out quite differently.

[merithyn]

Connecticut has a concealed carry law. I'm sure someone in that school COULD have carried a gun. I'm sure no one did because no one expects to need one. There are hundreds of thousands of schools in the US and what? Five have been shot up?

He shot each of the children multiple times. He wanted to make sure they were truly dead with no chance of survival. This guy wanted children dead, and nothing in place to keep schools safe was going to stop him from making that happen. Not the buzz-in system (he broke a window to get in), not gun laws (I understand the guns he had were legal(?), and CT is one of the strictest with gun laws in this country), nada. He came in prepared to do battle against small children with four guns and a flack jacket. Unless the teacher was a crack shot with a handgun - or carried a really big handgun - the guy was going to kill people.

This particular man (is 20 a man?) was fucked up, and he did a fucked up thing. Maybe I'm just being a defeatist, but I just don't believe that tighter gun laws would have changed things.