The Perpetual Gun Control Thread

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
69,129
6,711
423
Huntsville, AL,USA
he was adopted by hispanic parents
Just from general looks, so is he. This is not unusual in adoption procedures to try to pair up ethnic backgrounds. I still don't think that he selected the school he had been expelled from, and where he had had difficulties with students, particularly girls, because he saw it as an outpost of governmental tyranny. The victim list will tell worlds...
 

Special K

All-American
Feb 8, 2008
2,105
49
58
See, I'm not convinced of this. Australia didn't, for instance, ban semiautomatic weapons. They're still legal, they just require a more difficult license to obtain, and we already license firearms here. Now granted, any such law would be immediately challenged and stayed until SCOTUS ruled on it, but I don't think it's obviously any less constitutional than a federal ban on fully automatic rifles.

Perhaps the more tricky issue, as TW alludes to, is federal vs. state gun licensing.
Since when do we "license firearms", at least in Alabama? We license the privilege to carry concealed. Purchasing and owning a firearm does not require a license nor should it (IMHO).
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
69,129
6,711
423
Huntsville, AL,USA
Here is an idea. Specifically targeted for school shootings.

Make a law that puts some responsibility on the purchaser/owner of the firearm for the actions that a minor takes with that firearm. If the kid steals it, I don't know. Burglary is already against the law, but say a kid steals from his uncle. I am not really sure that the uncle should bear responsibility for the actions of a child he had no input on bringing into this world. It is difficult to determine where to draw the line.

If you choose not to keep your guns locked up, then you bear some responsibility. I don't know exactly what such a law would look like, and don't really know how you would quantify in the eyes of the law what would be constituted as a reasonable attempt to keep weapons safeguarded. But people are asking for what kind of law might work, and there is my stab at it. Poke holes in it or make it better, have at it.

I have no idea for a law on what to do for someone who can legally purchase firearms after going through the background check. Murder is already a fairly big no no but that still doesn't stop some people.

Two anecdotes:
Sandy Hook shooter's mom bought him the gun he used to carry out his shooting. Could her knowing that if he did anything with that firearm, that she would share responsibility, have changed whether she bought it for him?

Someone my wife works with had a son going through mental problems. Instead of ignoring the responsibility, he made the decision to get his firearms out of his house. We bought a couple, but the father recognized that it was a potential problem which is admirable.
You don't say it, but I'm sure you know that has no application in this case, since the shooter was "independent" and purchased the gun legally on his own...
 

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,066
953
128
Since when do we "license firearms", at least in Alabama? We license the privilege to carry concealed. Purchasing and owning a firearm does not require a license nor should it (IMHO).
But other states do, hence my second point. Enumerating that power to the federal government might be what ultimately requires a Constitutional amendment.

Edit: to clarify, CA requires a prospective gun buyer to take training classes and receive a certificate before being allowed to purchase firearms. There are different training courses (and therefore certificates) for each category of firearm.
 
Last edited:

chanson78

All-American
Nov 1, 2005
2,583
801
123
43
Huntsville, AL
You don't say it, but I'm sure you know that has no application in this case, since the shooter was "independent" and purchased the gun legally on his own...
Yeah this wouldn't have fixed this case. I was thinking about the ones where the shooters are not of legal age. Just for reference since I thought it was 18 for everything:

ATF said:
Yes. Under the Gun Control Act (GCA), shotguns and rifles, and ammunition for shotguns or rifles may be sold only to individuals 18 years of age or older. All firearms other than shotguns and rifles, and all ammunition other than ammunition for shotguns or rifles may be sold only to individuals 21 years of age or older. Licensees are bound by the minimum age requirements established by the GCA regardless of State or local law. However, if State law or local ordinances establish a higher minimum age for the purchase or disposition of firearms, the licensee must observe the higher age requirement.
 

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
41,061
6,644
273
50
East Point, Ga, USA
Just from general looks, so is he. This is not unusual in adoption procedures to try to pair up ethnic backgrounds. I still don't think that he selected the school he had been expelled from, and where he had had difficulties with students, particularly girls, because he saw it as an outpost of governmental tyranny. The victim list will tell worlds...
regardless of ethnicity, this kid could blend in at a klan meeting



and the governmental tyranny thing was a joke on cbi's post. implying the crazy kid thought the government (public school system) was out to get him because they had expelled him. i thought it was obvious, but i guess it wasn't
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
46,101
5,863
353
crimsonaudio.net
Sandy Hook shooter's mom bought him the gun he used to carry out his shooting. Could her knowing that if he did anything with that firearm, that she would share responsibility, have changed whether she bought it for him?
Slight point of clarification - Lanza killed his mother and stole her AR15.

Not a huge difference, but it's an important one - had she locked that firearm away in a safe (assuming she didn't give her unstable son the combination), Sandy Hook might have been avoided or greatly reduced.
 

cbi1972

Hall of Fame
Nov 8, 2005
17,541
15
48
47
Birmingham, AL
But other states do, hence my second point. Enumerating that power to the federal government might be what ultimately requires a Constitutional amendment.

Edit: to clarify, CA requires a prospective gun buyer to take training classes and receive a certificate before being allowed to purchase firearms. There are different training courses (and therefore certificates) for each category of firearm.
That is not firearm licensing.
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
46,101
5,863
353
crimsonaudio.net
See, I'm not convinced of this. Australia didn't, for instance, ban semiautomatic weapons. They're still legal, they just require a more difficult license to obtain, and we already license firearms here. Now granted, any such law would be immediately challenged and stayed until SCOTUS ruled on it, but I don't think it's obviously any less constitutional than a federal ban on fully automatic rifles.
Ahh, but the Heller decision specifically notes that the right to bear arms is an individual one, that self defense is a viable reason to own and possess them.

I'd further point that if we want to address gun violence in the US we should spend less time focusing on the 'plane crashes' and more time focusing on the 'distracted drivers' of the world. FAR more people are killed annually in daily gun violence than in mass shootings. That doesn't mean that mass shootings aren't something we attempt to address, but the reality is that gun violence is much bigger than the headline grabbing mass shootings.
 

TUSCALOOSAHONOR

All-SEC
Oct 3, 2014
1,138
11
48
50
Slocomb, Al
www.facebook.com
Possibly, I simply thought about the incredible number of firearm owners I know and couldn't think of a single one who has fantasies about a breakdown in society or a hero complex.


I guess that all depends on who kicks in your front door. If three or four armed people broke into your home, I'm betting you'd understand why some feel the need for high capacity magazines.

Further, if I may, let me add that unless / until everyone realizes that comments like 'high powered military grade arms' are emotional and quite silly in the context of what's available, we'll get nowhere. It's the same thing as those who constantly criticize Trump / Obama / whoever is in the WH - at some point, if you cannot speak in factual and unemotional terms when discussing a topic, you're only going to reach people who already agree with you.

Let me finish with this - I'm not unwilling to discuss magazine limitations, etc. I think they're pointless, but again, they may work - I cannot see what the future holds. But I'm only willing to discuss these sorts of compromises if both sides are willing to dial down the rhetoric and speak in facts.

Ultimately, we can point fingers all day, but those who wish to solve this problem via gun control laws need to explain exactly what they think needs to be done and how it will work in the real world. Working around 2A and the subsequent SCOTUS rulings makes that tough.
I keep a pistol almost within reach of me at home and it is what I would use in case three people burst in on me. I probably wouldn't use an ar because of the proximity or closeness of the intruders. Pistol is easier to swing into action. However I've always told people not that familiar with firearms but wanted protection that a shotgun, in home, is the best defense. You're not typically going to miss with it and most inturder tend to know that.
 

Bazza

TideFans Legend
Oct 1, 2011
25,884
3,120
178
New Smyrna Beach, Florida
-snip-FAR more people are killed annually in daily gun violence than in mass shootings. That doesn't mean that mass shootings aren't something we attempt to address, but the reality is that gun violence is much bigger than the headline grabbing mass shootings.
Goes to what I have said on here on several occasions about the media not helping as much as they could. Priority # 1 for them is ratings. Meanwhile....our cultural issues keep growing.....and growing......
 

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,066
953
128
Ahh, but the Heller decision specifically notes that the right to bear arms is an individual one, that self defense is a viable reason to own and possess them.
But Heller affirmed that the Miller decision extends second amendment protection only to certain kinds of weapons. IMO there's plenty of wiggle room. From Heller:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the amendment or state analogues. The court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. The holding in United States v. Miller that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
46,101
5,863
353
crimsonaudio.net
But Heller affirmed that the Miller decision extends second amendment protection only to certain kinds of weapons. IMO there's plenty of wiggle room. From Heller:
Indeed, there is wiggle room, but my point stands - it will be very difficult (I dare say impossible) to curtail firearms like AUS did.
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
69,129
6,711
423
Huntsville, AL,USA
Should we implement the same level of security and protection for our public schools as we do our courthouses?
This has occurred to me. Offhand, it seems to me that the expense would be prohibitive. It's also good to note that Lanza literally shot his way into the school...
 

Bazza

TideFans Legend
Oct 1, 2011
25,884
3,120
178
New Smyrna Beach, Florida
This has occurred to me. Offhand, it seems to me that the expense would be prohibitive. It's also good to note that Lanza literally shot his way into the school...
Could Lanza have shot his way into a courthouse though?

Around here there are deputies with side arms at the entrance. :eek2:
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
46,101
5,863
353
crimsonaudio.net
Sorry, forgot to address this earlier.

No, there have not been 18 school shootings so far in 2018

This highlights how far the media outlets are willing to go to stir up emotional responses.
I guess I'll just throw this out here - fundamentally speaking, the discussion is essentially this - everyone I have ever spoken about this, from avid shooters to those who wish to ban firearms entirely, would like to see gun violence drastically reduced and is both angered and saddened by these mass shootings. That said, what gun restriction proponents are asking is essentially that may of us willingly curtail our own rights for the betterment of the whole. I own 'high capacity' magazines and AR pattern rifles. I also own pistols that carry more than 10 rounds (the typical cutoff when people discuss 'high capacity magazines'). Yet I've only ever enjoyed these in peace, target shooting, firearm safety drills, etc. I own these for my enjoyment and the protection of myself and my family - and I'm no different that about 99% of all legal firearm owners in that regard.

Why we keep circling back to is this - discussing compromises of our rights without ensuring that we've solved any underlying problems is generally not going to fly with gun owners. While there are some gun owners who are unwilling to discuss any potential compromise, you'd likely be surprised at how many are open to at least discussing it intelligently - but it has to start with digging deep and researching where the problem comes from.

We didn't just wake up in the mid-90s and suddenly have more guns around - this country has been stocked to the gills with firearms since it began. Something has changed - be it something in out society, something in our medicines or food, I have no idea. But something is fundamentally different now than it was 30 years ago. Unless / until we divine and figure that out, you're going find a lot of gun owners unwilling to compromise, as we know these things WILL continue.
 

Latest threads

TideFansStore.com - Get your gear!

Purchases made through our TideFansStore.com link may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.