CDZ What gun laws will prevent massacres and how will they do it

[miketx]

It's a fact that criminals don't obey laws so how will more gun laws prevent crimes with guns?
Let's hear from you.

 

[miketx]

Hmmm, strangely silent.

 

[BULLDOG]

Laws against murder, robbery, arson, sex crimes and terrorism obviously don't prevent those things from happening, so why should we bother with laws concerning any of these things. They are just another way to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens.

 

[usmbguest5318]

While it is true that felons have no regard for the laws they break in committing their villainous acts, the fact remains that to perform a massacre most individuals need tools, other than their bare hands and assorted typical household items, of some sort to successfully execute a massacre. One such tool is a gun, and it's a readily available and high effective tool for committing a massacre.

Without question, laws that increase authorities' visibility to and understanding of the individuals who procure guns will not stop every would-be mass slayer. On the other hand, they are sure to reduce the quantity of malfeasant individuals who are able to obtain a gun they can use to massacre others. That in turn will reduce the quantity of incidents in which individuals massacre people.

Take, for example, Adam Lanza who killed some score of children while they were at school. A law that would place culpability equal to that of Lanza on the last identifiable/authorized owner of the gun he used would surely have motivated that person to more securely maintain their lawfully obtained guns. It's not troubling to me that the owner of gun(s) Lanza used had guns. I have a problem with their insouciantly maintaining them such that Adam was able to obtain one and use it to kill a bunch of people.

Is that going to stop every massacre that might happen? Of course not. But insofar as we're talking about massacres rather than single individual killings, stopping one or two massacres is good enough reason, unless, of course, one thinks the instantaneous loss of the lives of multiple (lots even) people at the hands of one gun wielding individual isn't worth it.

 

[2aguy]

While it is true that felons have no regard for the laws they break in committing their villainous acts, the fact remains that to perform a massacre most individuals need tools, other than their bare hands and assorted typical household items, of some sort to successfully execute a massacre. One such tool is a gun, and it's a readily available and high effective tool for committing a massacre.

Without question, laws that increase authorities' visibility to and understanding of the individuals who procure guns will not stop every would-be mass slayer. On the other hand, they are sure to reduce the quantity of malfeasant individuals who are able to obtain a gun they can use to massacre others. That in turn will reduce the quantity of incidents in which individuals massacre people.

Take, for example, Adam Lanza who killed some score of children while they were at school. A law that would place culpability equal to that of Lanza on the last identifiable/authorized owner of the gun he used would surely have motivated that person to more securely maintain their lawfully obtained guns. It's not troubling to me that the owner of gun(s) Lanza used had guns. I have a problem with their insouciantly maintaining them such that Adam was able to obtain one and use it to kill a bunch of people.

Is that going to stop every massacre that might happen? Of course not. But insofar as we're talking about massacres rather than single individual killings, stopping one or two massacres is good enough reason, unless, of course, one thinks the instantaneous loss of the lives of multiple (lots even) people at the hands of one gun wielding individual isn't worth it.

Take, for example, Adam Lanza who killed some score of children while they were at school. A law that would place culpability equal to that of Lanza on the last identifiable/authorized owner of the gun he used would surely have motivated that person to more securely maintain their lawfully obtained guns.

How do you hold a corpse accountable....do you realize he killed the last owner of those guns?

Do you realize that almost all of the mass shooters acquired their own guns, legally, passing every test that the laws have created..in fact, the Pulse Nightclub shooter passed at least 3 background checks, 3 FBI interviews, and a thorough background check from the FBI including and undercover operation against him.......and he passed all of them......

Mass shooters, for your information, are able to pass every check we currently have because they are not criminals until they engage in the murders.......and the few who aren't.....get their guns illegally, like the Columbine shooters did, and the Sandy Hook killer did....

The Santa Barbara killer....passed a background check for all his guns...and even used the legal, 10 round magazines for his shootings......

Mass shooters plan their attacks 6 months to 2 years in advance.........

Australia has banned and confiscated guns.......and the only reason they haven't had a mass public shooting since they did this? The shooters who have tried to do mass shootings haven't actually killed 3 or more people.....but there have been a lot of shootings where a lot of people were shot, or could have been shot...and that is in a country that banned guns....

 

[2aguy]

Laws against murder, robbery, arson, sex crimes and terrorism obviously don't prevent those things from happening, so why should we bother with laws concerning any of these things. They are just another way to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens.

And this false argument is trotted out again. Our laws punish people for criminal acts. That is why you get a ticket only after you speed and break the speeding law. We already have all the laws we need to punish actual crimes for guns.

What you guys want is Pre-Crimes for guns........licensing gun owners, so that if they don't get a license you can punish them, even though they have not used the gun for an actual crime.

Registration of guns......one, criminals do not have to register their illegal guns, as per the Supreme Court ruling in Haynes v. United States...so two, only law abiding people are required to register their guns....how does that make any sense....

Again, you only want to force people to register guns so that if a law abiding person fails to register a gun, you can arrest them and strip them of their 2nd Amendment rights.......even though they did not use the gun to commit any actual crime...

Also...you want to register guns because you know that is the prerequisite step for banning guns and confiscating them....because they first registered guns in Britain, Germany and Australia, and then used those records years later to ban and confiscate guns....

So.....we have laws already....if you commit a crime with a gun, you can already be arrested and locked up. So your point is foolish.......what you want is to punish law abiding gun owners by setting up laws to trip them up...to catch them in paperwork mistakes that you can then exploit to take away their guns...and to make examples of them for other law abiding people....to discourage gun ownership.....

 

[2aguy]

While it is true that felons have no regard for the laws they break in committing their villainous acts, the fact remains that to perform a massacre most individuals need tools, other than their bare hands and assorted typical household items, of some sort to successfully execute a massacre. One such tool is a gun, and it's a readily available and high effective tool for committing a massacre.

Without question, laws that increase authorities' visibility to and understanding of the individuals who procure guns will not stop every would-be mass slayer. On the other hand, they are sure to reduce the quantity of malfeasant individuals who are able to obtain a gun they can use to massacre others. That in turn will reduce the quantity of incidents in which individuals massacre people.

Take, for example, Adam Lanza who killed some score of children while they were at school. A law that would place culpability equal to that of Lanza on the last identifiable/authorized owner of the gun he used would surely have motivated that person to more securely maintain their lawfully obtained guns. It's not troubling to me that the owner of gun(s) Lanza used had guns. I have a problem with their insouciantly maintaining them such that Adam was able to obtain one and use it to kill a bunch of people.

Is that going to stop every massacre that might happen? Of course not. But insofar as we're talking about massacres rather than single individual killings, stopping one or two massacres is good enough reason, unless, of course, one thinks the instantaneous loss of the lives of multiple (lots even) people at the hands of one gun wielding individual isn't worth it.

On the other hand, they are sure to reduce the quantity of malfeasant individuals who are able to obtain a gun they can use to massacre others.


There is no evidence that this is true....in any way....as my previous post pointed out......

In the United States.....we had 9,616 gun murders in the U.S. in 2015 according to the FBI homicide table 8....

How many of those were from mass shooters? 37.

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2017: Data From Mother Jones’ Investigation – Mother Jones
US Mass Shootings, 1982-2016: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

2015......37

So......of those 9,616 gun murders.....90%...from research on criminals and murder.........90% of those shooters are criminals who are already barred from legally buying, owning and carrying guns.......

So....what we need to do...is not focus on law abiding gun owners....we need to lock up actual criminals who use guns for actual criminal acts for 30 years......

That is how you stop gun crime...not by licensing people who don't use guns for crime. Not by registering the guns of people who don't commit crimes....and not with universal background checks for people who don't use their guns for crime...since criminals license their illegal guns, they don't have to register their illegal guns...and since the criminals use straw buyers to get their illegal guns......

 

[2aguy]

While it is true that felons have no regard for the laws they break in committing their villainous acts, the fact remains that to perform a massacre most individuals need tools, other than their bare hands and assorted typical household items, of some sort to successfully execute a massacre. One such tool is a gun, and it's a readily available and high effective tool for committing a massacre.

Without question, laws that increase authorities' visibility to and understanding of the individuals who procure guns will not stop every would-be mass slayer. On the other hand, they are sure to reduce the quantity of malfeasant individuals who are able to obtain a gun they can use to massacre others. That in turn will reduce the quantity of incidents in which individuals massacre people.

Take, for example, Adam Lanza who killed some score of children while they were at school. A law that would place culpability equal to that of Lanza on the last identifiable/authorized owner of the gun he used would surely have motivated that person to more securely maintain their lawfully obtained guns. It's not troubling to me that the owner of gun(s) Lanza used had guns. I have a problem with their insouciantly maintaining them such that Adam was able to obtain one and use it to kill a bunch of people.

Is that going to stop every massacre that might happen? Of course not. But insofar as we're talking about massacres rather than single individual killings, stopping one or two massacres is good enough reason, unless, of course, one thinks the instantaneous loss of the lives of multiple (lots even) people at the hands of one gun wielding individual isn't worth it.

A law that would place culpability equal to that of Lanza on the last identifiable/authorized owner of the gun he used would surely have motivated that person to more securely maintain their lawfully obtained guns.

So.......you sell a gun legally to someone, and they use that gun to commit a mass shooting.....you want the legal seller to be held accountable for the criminal acts of the shooter? Does this also apply to the car dealer who sells the car to the jihadi who runs people over? Or the rental agency that rents the truck to the jihadi....legally?

And if a mass shooter steals a gun......how is the last owner of that gun culpable, rather than being a victim of a crime?

If you leave your gun sitting on your front lawn....you have a case. If the gun is in your home.....you have no case. Having your property stolen does not make you culpable for the criminal use of your stolen property.

 

[2aguy]

The laws that will stop mass shootings....? To answer the threads question....

End gun free zones. Mass shooters target gun free zones when they are picking targets that aren't based on a personal grudge against the target...

Ending gun free zones is the only way to reduce mass public shootings.