School shooting in Texas (shooter arrested)

[A2K78]

I'm kind of annoyed nothing has been done about this.

Liberals say it's a gun control problem, but they can't do anything about it because the Republicans get high key triggered about the second amendment.

Republicans say it's a mental health issue, yet no one on either side sounds like they are trying to greater fund mental health services and studies...

I dont care what the issue is, but people in the government need to do something besides "thoughts and prayers"...

People are coming to reality about guns

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...-guns-complicates-debate-over-assault-rifles/

 

[mustafur]

This is the first one in awhile where the shooter didn't legally buy the guns, he stole them off an owner.

Doesn't really complicate the message, it's different.

 

[UKMikey]

Doesn't really complicate the message, it's different.

Could somebody please summarise the story for those of us who are unable to read it because of the paywall? At least enough to tell us who the headline is quoting?

[EDIT] On second thoughts, don't worry about it. It's one of the victims' dads, the president of the "Firearms Policy Coalition" and an NRA representative so I don't see this debate going away any time soon.

The guy from the Brady Coalition said:

We also have to think about changing social norms and behaviors. This is not simply a problem of having the wrong laws on the books — although that’s a big part of the problem — it’s also making sure that those people who choose to be gun owners store their weapons securely.

To me this sounds closer to reality than shrugging one's shoulders and saying the shooter could have used a bomb or truck instead.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Could somebody please summarise the story for those of us who are unable to read it because of the paywall? At least enough to tell us who the headline is quoting?

[EDIT] On second thoughts, don't worry about it. It's one of the victims' dads, the president of the "Firearms Policy Coalition" and an NRA representative so I don't see this debate going away any time soon.

The guy from the Brady Coalition said:



To me this sounds closer to reality than shrugging one's shoulders and saying the shooter could have used a bomb or truck instead.

well any of the responsible gun owners here would tell you that should have been done, however the kid could have easily known how to get access. He's nearly 18 so in reality he shouldn't have ever taken guns that weren't his from the home, thus he should be charged with that too.

 

[Mr Tree]

“Raising the minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18-25.”
Well that’s an excellent way to surge the number of rapes/violent crime victims in that specific age range.

yeah I don't own a gun and of my friends and people I know only 1 does, we didn't get raped nor mugged.

Why do people think they'll be raped/assualted if they don't own a gun?

You completely missed what I meant by that. You do realize there are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of law abiding gun owners in that age range, right? All this does is not help them protect their life, liberty, and property.

Should protection be seen as a personal issue. Most western societies are safe enought to live in without owning a gun.

Also don't misunderstand me I'm ok with people owning guns. I do like it to be heavily regulated.

The OK city bombing is certainly removed from the recent school shootings in a number of respects. I don't bring it up because it is the same, I bring it up because people assume (incorrectly) that guns are the only way to kill lots of people. Right now they're probably the easiest way to kill lots of people in the US, especially for a 17 year old. But cars (see Australia, France, and NYC) are also pretty easy ways to kill and maim lots of people, as are bombs (see Boston Marathon).

Human beings in society are very vulnerable... that's almost impossible to prevent. You certainly hear about people who fantasize about pushing someone off of a subway platform. You also hear about people who contemplate pushing someone off of a cliff at a national park when there are no witnesses ("he was messing around and just fell off officer"). I bring these examples up not because they're parallel to school shootings, but because they're examples of vulnerability. Vulnerability is good though, it means that we have some level of autonomy in public - which makes life bearable.

Given that vulnerability is here to stay, we should be addressing the problem of violence, especially among teenage boys. I'm not particularly obsessed with mass murder as the main crime that I want to fight. I'm also interested in preventing individual murders, attempted murders, battery, rape, domestic abuse, child abuse, police brutality, and any other violent acts that aren't jumping to mind. Any of these can change your life forever, they're all important.

I agree that the school shooting trend is probably feeding on itself. Reacting with renewed calls against the 2nd amendment and protests is not calming that feedback either. The more obsessed the nation becomes with it, the more we're going to see it happen. As that trend continues I'm afraid schools are going to start looking even more like prison.

Adressing all the other issues is important and one part of a greater solution. But why shouldn't gunregulation be part of that since that is the tool of choice of many of these murderers. When I hear this argument of 'other issues are the root' being made it's often as a response to someone opening the conversation to gunlaws. This implies it's not a way to incorporate a larger solution but rather to stop the gunlegislation talk to be had in the first place. This is dishonnest of those people imo.

(This is more a general remark then directly directed at you)

It sure seems like that's the only thing a good chunk of people want to talk about whenever one of these things happen. I haven't seen any rallies demanding mental healthcare reform, however there's already been gun control rallies since the Texas shooting.

Because now there was a shooting. Mental health should more often be discussed but it's not wrong that currently people are tamk9ng about gunlegislation.

@_ApexPredator. You have said that you're pro gun. But yet you argue that the focus needs to be on guns and not the problem.

Please do me a favour and make up your mind on which side your on.[/QUOTE]

You can be pro gun ownership and pro legislation you get that right?
Or do I not get how that's apparently not possible.

@Northstar
Also let's look at this issue with an analogy that just as good (read: bad) as the cancer analogy. Imagine sarcoidoses on someones lungs. While not possible to solve the dissease people get treated foe their symptoms. You know why? Because those people would die otherwise!
See vhuman violence as the sarco an incurable human disease and gunviolence/deaths as the symptoms (organ failure). Now we could complain we should solve the problem and not the symptoms. But by lack af a better solution it means the patient dies.

Analogies can be twisted against you too.


Edit: I realise I can't have a descent debatz on guns as my knowledge is somewhat 'lacking' but the tactics to NOT talk about guns are clear and just as dishonnest as talking obly about guns. This is the american issue imo the fact that talking about guns is not possible regardless of the outcome.

 

[TetsuKobura]

Should protection be seen as a personal issue. Most western societies are safe enought to live in without owning a gun.

Also don't misunderstand me I'm ok with people owning guns. I do like it to be heavily regulated.

In America, you have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That's what separates us from other Western countries. If you think this is ridiculous, then look at it this way: At any concert venue or sports venue, there are far better checks going on before entering said venues, unlike schools here where the only checking system put in place in a majority of schools is a simple "Gun-free zone," but let's go after firearms instead.

The problem with new regulations as implied that you want from your post, is nothing could've stopped this shooting.

"The Texas shooter used two of the most common, easily accessed guns in America: a traditional .38 caliber pistol and a shotgun. No so-called "assault weapons" or the much-reviled (but hugely popular among gun owners) AR-15. No, just the sort of basic firearms that gun-control supporters often say they find acceptable."

 

[Mr Tree]

In America, you have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That's what separates us from other Western countries. If you think this is ridiculous, then look at it this way: At any concert venue or sports venue, there are far better checks going on before entering said venues, unlike schools here where the only checking system put in place in a majority of schools is a simple "Gun-free zone," but let's go after firearms instead.

The problem with new regulations as implied that you want from your post, is nothing could've stopped this shooting.

"The Texas shooter used two of the most common, easily accessed guns in America: a traditional .38 caliber pistol and a shotgun. No so-called "assault weapons" or the much-reviled (but hugely popular among gun owners) AR-15. No, just the sort of basic firearms that gun-control supporters often say they find acceptable."

I'll start with adressing your final paragraph:
I wasn't talning specificly about this case but the general gun debate or lack there of.

Second of all in what way do I as a Belgian not have 'the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness' and it's very important yoy explain yourself! You're implying I don't have the rights to that which effectively means I live under some form of authoritarian dictator.

I expect an explanation! That's like the mist offensive thing one has ever claimed and I had no idea people that actually believe that meurica is the only free country in the world.

Edit we have to go through security before entering a sporting event. Usually no metekdetectors.
Going to school.and.having to pass through metal detectors in and of itself is troublesome to say the least. Finding that situation normal imo signals some serious issues with both the person finding that normal and the society that perosn lives in. Saying that society grants rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happines is lvl9000 mindblowing.

 

[PocketZeven]

In America, you have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That's what separates us from other Western countries. If you think this is ridiculous, then look at it this way: At any concert venue or sports venue, there are far better checks going on before entering said venues, unlike schools here where the only checking system put in place in a majority of schools is a simple "Gun-free zone," but let's go after firearms instead.

The problem with new regulations as implied that you want from your post, is nothing could've stopped this shooting.

"The Texas shooter used two of the most common, easily accessed guns in America: a traditional .38 caliber pistol and a shotgun. No so-called "assault weapons" or the much-reviled (but hugely popular among gun owners) AR-15. No, just the sort of basic firearms that gun-control supporters often say they find acceptable."

I guess you haven’t travelled abroad much.

 

[Mr Tree]

In America, you have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That's what separates us from other Western countries. If you think this is ridiculous, then look at it this way: At any concert venue or sports venue, there are far better checks going on before entering said venues, unlike schools here where the only checking system put in place in a majority of schools is a simple "Gun-free zone," but let's go after firearms instead.

The problem with new regulations as implied that you want from your post, is nothing could've stopped this shooting.

"The Texas shooter used two of the most common, easily accessed guns in America: a traditional .38 caliber pistol and a shotgun. No so-called "assault weapons" or the much-reviled (but hugely popular among gun owners) AR-15. No, just the sort of basic firearms that gun-control supporters often say they find acceptable."

And nothing could have been done? On a legislative level you might be right. But for starters the dad could've been a respobsible gunowner and not let his son be able to reach those guns.

This could have happened in the same way in belgium so I do not mean the way this shooting happened could not have happened in the unfree Belgium.

 

[TetsuKobura]

Second of all in what way do I as a Belgian not have 'the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness' and it's very important yoy explain yourself! You're implying I don't have the rights to that which effectively means I live under some form of authoritarian dictator.

I was talking about the 2nd Amendment, so I probably should've clarified, but okay.

Say the dad had a gun safe. As much as I am all for a safe rule for locking up guns, the kid could've found the key to it.

I guess you haven’t travelled abroad much.

And you don't know anything about America's gun laws. Your point?

 

[Mr Tree]

I was talking about the 2nd Amendment, so I probably should've clarified, but okay.

Say the dad had a gun safe. As much as I am all for a safe rule for locking up guns, the kid could've found the key to it.


And you don't know anything about America's gun laws. Your point?

Ok before you know what legislation I'm in favour of how do you know it violated the second amendment?

This is what I mean, a part of the pro gun side isn't willing to have the conversation regardless of what the outcome may be.

Also your comment about the right to life,... being american.and now moving the goalpost to the second amendment. The 2nd doesn't involve the right to life nor happiness and not even does it grant liberty so why did you frame it like we don't have those rights. Mind you I have the right to own a gun in Belgium, so we also have the right to have weapons. We're not allowed to wear them on the streets if I'm correct. And in a civil society one shouldn't have the need to. Having guns in the street needlesly complicates police work and negatively affects safety on a macro level. Shooting people on the streets is a police job and it becomes a lot easier to police knowing the people with the guns that aren't in blue are criminals. I have the right carry a gun on my private property and thus to protect my family. My safety does have to be in danger before I am allowed to shoot someone.

Often used tactics in debate avoidance:
Guns don't kill people.
Regulating guns won't help als it's... (i.e. mental health issues)
You're not american you can't understand our second amendment.
It's to soon after a shooting.
Don't do political recuperation
....

 

[Danoff]

Adressing all the other issues is important and one part of a greater solution. But why shouldn't gunregulation be part of that since that is the tool of choice of many of these murderers. When I hear this argument of 'other issues are the root' being made it's often as a response to someone opening the conversation to gunlaws. This implies it's not a way to incorporate a larger solution but rather to stop the gunlegislation talk to be had in the first place. This is dishonnest of those people imo.

(This is more a general remark then directly directed at you)

That's a lot of commentary on stuff I didn't say in response to stuff I said. I'm certainly not saying that gun legislation can't be necessary or good. It can certainly be part of the discussion, but I don't like it to be the focus of the discussion (which is always what happens). Focusing the discussion on legislation is intellectually lazy. It pretends several things which aren't true... first, that government is actually quite powerful in this arena. In the US, our government doesn't have all that much power (legally and practically) to ensure that legal guns stay out of the hands of kids who have never committed a crime and have given us no warning that they're about to shoot up their classmates. Second, it pretends that keeping guns out of the hands of those same kids, if it were possible via legislation, would actually solve the problem. We know that it wouldn't, because the problem is not school shootings, it's that some kids want to and are willing to kill their classmates indiscriminately. That's the problem. Preventing them from doing it (as hard as that is) would be a bandage. People find other ways.

I'm happy to talk about gun legislation that actually helps solve the problem. But in most cases it's a red herring. Very few of these incidents have involved scenario where a new law that doesn't exist is first of all possible, second of all would have helped prevent the incident as it happened, and a nice third would be to have a decent chance of preventing the incident in any form.

 

[Mr Tree]

That's a lot of commentary on stuff I didn't say in response to stuff I said. I'm certainly not saying that gun legislation can't be necessary or good. It can certainly be part of the discussion, but I don't like it to be the focus of the discussion (which is always what happens). Focusing the discussion on legislation is intellectually lazy. It pretends several things which aren't true... first, that government is actually quite powerful in this arena. In the US, our government doesn't have all that much power (legally and practically) to ensure that legal guns stay out of the hands of kids who have never committed a crime and have given us no warning that they're about to shoot up their classmates. Second, it pretends that keeping guns out of the hands of those same kids, if it were possible via legislation, would actually solve the problem. We know that it wouldn't, because the problem is not school shootings, it's that some kids want to and are willing to kill their classmates indiscriminately. That's the problem. Preventing them from doing it (as hard as that is) would be a bandage. People find other ways.

I'm happy to talk about gun legislation that actually helps solve the problem. But in most cases it's a red herring. Very few of these incidents have involved scenario where a new law that doesn't exist is first of all possible, second of all would have helped prevent the incident as it happened, and a nice third would be to have a decent chance of preventing the incident in any form.

I know your position is quite nuanced. I can understand that you'd not like it to be the focus as it indeed is a symptom of a bunch of larger issues.
I also know you're ok talking about gun legislation in combination with other factors.

I'm sorry if you felt singled out as that wasn't my intent with that post. I actually found your post interesting to qoute as you showed wanting it encapsuled within more extensive solutions is defenitly a possible route to go as long as we don't act like the gun part alone would solve anything. And as long as we realise helping people with mental health issues is the very important mission in a lot of thede instances.

Edit: @Danoff I even think the mdntal health issue covers a lot. Americans seem to shoot people up or go on opiodes (this is a gross overdimplification) in Belgium it's all sorts of drugs and suicides. It's not often talked about but we have a suicide issue in Belgium (any other europeans who think the same of their county?). Approximatly 2-3% of minors have attempted suicide if I'm correct. And as I've stated before I lost a lot of friends due to that.

https://www.hln.be/nieuws/binnenland/help-mijn-kind-denkt-aan-zelfmoord~a2e732fcf/

Edit2: https://www.hln.be/nieuws/ons-akelig-hoog-zelfdodingscijfer-in-europese-context~a74203030/

And our government just looks away. That's one that pisses me of on a daily basis with thousands of emotions going through my body. I feel anger, resentment, sadness, powerlesness (sorry don't know the correct word) guilt a lot of guilt and regrets, understanding,...

So our society isn't awesome either. Ow yeah on top of that I have to hear peopld who commit suicide are weak and should be despised as they leave all those people behind and thus are egoistical. Yeah sorry wanted to say a bit about suicide but when I start I can't stop. I'll leave it at this

 

[TetsuKobura]

This is what I mean, a part of the pro gun side isn't willing to have the conversation regardless of what the outcome may be.

Also your comment about the right to life,... being american.and now moving the goalpost to the second amendment. The 2nd doesn't involve the right to life nor happiness and not even does it grant liberty so why did you frame it like we don't have those rights. Mind you I have the right to own a gun in Belgium, so we also have the right to have weapons. We're not allowed to wear them on the streets if I'm correct. And in a civil society one shouldn't have the need to. Having guns in the street needlesly complicates police work and negatively affects safety on a macro level. Shooting people on the streets is a police job and it becomes a lot easier to police knowing the people with the guns that aren't in blue are criminals. I have the right carry a gun on my private property and thus to protect my family. My safety does have to be in danger before I am allowed to shoot someone.

Often used tactics in debate avoidance:
Guns don't kill people.
Regulating guns won't help als it's... (i.e. mental health issues)
You're not american you can't understand our second amendment.
It's to soon after a shooting.
Don't do political recuperation
....

First off, it's not a matter of not willing to have a conversation regardless of outcome, but why would I waste my time when the major players on the control side are using their feelings over actual statistics, and when they also use ad hominems to describe basic civil rights organizations? Keep in mind, I'm more than fine with having a conversation, but don't try to spread bs when having it.

Here's why I mentioned the 2nd amendment. Here in my country, if someone breaks into your house and threatens your life, you're well within bounds to stop the situation by any means necessary, at least in my state, whereas you can't in some other countries it seems. As far as a civil society goes, that's never going to happen in the inner cities, especially in the lesser developed places. When I lived in Galveston, there was a lot more juvenile type activity going on in night time, so having something on you to protect yourself could actually save your life.

Another thing to clarify is, you say that shooting "people on the streets" is a police job, and yet, no officer decided to enter the fray when Nicolas Cruz was shooting students inside Marjory Stoneman Douglass High. If police are too incompetent to protect the lives of the communities they swore to under oath, then what are you supposed to do? Let people die without any action being done?

And if you want to make a list of dumb talking points, I can do the same.
-You don't need x weapon.
-If you want x weapon then join the military.
-We don't have x here so it works.

One last thing, there's a reason why you don't politicize a massacre right after it happens, because most major news outlets said the shooter had so and so, or he has a history of whatever, and it turned out that it was nothing more than false reported information.

 

[TexRex]

Say the dad had a gun safe. As much as I am all for a safe rule for locking up guns, the kid could've found the key to it.

Did he have one? It's easier to be a responsible gun owner if one is held responsible for what happens with the gun(s) they own.

 

[TetsuKobura]

Did he have one? It's easier to be a responsible gun owner if one is held responsible for what happens with the gun(s) they own.

I'm unsure if he did, as I haven't seen anything about that from any recent developments. Hopefully they find this out soon, as it could impact future decisions about what to do. Worst case is he doesn't and the guns were just lying around, but I hope that isn't the case because then it just makes gun owners in general look even more dumb...

 

[Mr Tree]

First off, it's not a matter of not willing to have a conversation regardless of outcome, but why would I waste my time when the major players on the control side are using their feelings over actual statistics, and when they also use ad hominems to describe basic civil rights organizations?

Here's why I mentioned the 2nd amendment. Here in my country, if someone breaks into your house and threatens your life, you're well within bounds to stop the situation by any means necessary, at least in my state, whereas you can't in some other countries it seems. As far as a civil society goes, that's never going to happen in the inner cities, especially in the lesser developed places. When I lived in Galveston, there was a lot more juvenile type activity going on in night time, so having something on you to protect yourself could actually save your life.

Another thing to clarify is, you say that shooting "people on the streets" is a police job, and yet, no officer decided to enter the fray when Nicolas Cruz was shooting students inside Marjory Stoneman Douglass High. If police are too incompetent to protect the lives of the communities they swore to under oath, then what are you supposed to do? Let people die without any action being done?

And if you want to make a list of dumb talking points, I can do the same.
-You don't need x weapon.
-If you want x weapon then join the military.
-We don't have x here so it works.

Point 1 I didn't use an ad hom to my knowing in anh reply to you.

Point 2 I can do to and that man whose article you posted about had/has too. He was arrested as he killed someone becaus that is standard procedure. After the first few interrogation he was let out of prison if I recall correctly. And now a judge will deceide if it was self defense, which it most likely will be. In that case he won't have a criminal record. So using that article wasn't maning your point unless you belive due process isn't important.

Point 3 is a problem at your police department. I'd suggest a more rigorous application program to check the policeman applying are the kind of people you want policing a community.

Point 4 I haven't used one of those talking points for good reason. Now the lat reason we don't have x here so.. well I believe, based on all the countries that did legislate a bit stricter that gunviolence drops. What I don't mean by that statement is that legislation would solve everything. And I don't believe legislation all and of itself is still a valid way to go for america seeing it's cultural ties to gunownership.

Edit: and yes not politicising is ok. I said thise tactics are used to deflecr from the concersation. When it's legit to call one of those out you have every right to as I pointed out some of the pro control arguments aren't inherrently bad. The way apllied is bad.

 

[TexRex]

Hopefully they find this out soon, as it could impact future decisions about what to do.

Could it though?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Edit: and yes not politicising is ok. I said thise tactics are used to deflecr from the concersation. When it's legit to call one of those out you have every right to as I pointed out some of the pro control arguments aren't inherrently bad. The way apllied is bad.

And some of the counter arguments to gun control aren't bad either. Making a mockery of them as you did a few posts ago really makes me question whether you want to have a conversation about it or just have your own way.

 

[UKMikey]

Here's why I mentioned the 2nd amendment. Here in my country, if someone breaks into your house and threatens your life, you're well within bounds to stop the situation by any means necessary, at least in my state, whereas you can't in some other countries it seems.

Is this the same guy they released a couple of days later without charge? If so, I guess that means we in Britain don't have the freedom to stab people to death without being involved in a police investigation to determine the facts. Personally, that's the kind of freedom that I'm happy to live without.

 

[Mr Tree]

And some of the counter arguments to gun control aren't bad either. Making a mockery of them as you did a few posts ago really makes me question whether you want to have a conversation about it or just have your own way.

I did so because one of those tactics was applied by the poster. I have accepted mine to be made a mockery of and even agreed there is good reason for it. I agreed they stem from an actual argument when used in a conversation and not to stop the conversation.

So what was the actual point of your post? To say I do not accept some of them as honnest arguments while I did so in the part you qouted.
That I want to say everyone pro 2d amendment is bad? Something I haven't done.
I've had honnest conversations with both you and danoff about the legislation itself and.the cultural.difficulties for the USA. They actually made me.way more nuanced. And I have not advocated for a single legislation yet in this thread. All I did was point out conversationstoppers.

Please what explain.what the intent of your post was as it flies right over my head.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

These statements are at odds with one another:

First off, it's not a matter of not willing to have a conversation regardless of outcome, but why would I waste my time when the major players on the control side are using their feelings over actual statistics, and when they also use ad hominems to describe basic civil rights organizations? Keep in mind, I'm more than fine with having a conversation, but don't try to spread bs when having it.

And if you want to make a list of dumb talking points, I can do the same.

...

I was in Texas when this happened. Miles away in Austin, I actually had no idea until I got a text message from a family member here in Canada, asking me to check in. It was sad to find out that way, and depressingly surreal to see the news on all of the TVs at the airport — and watch nearly everybody just milling around doing their usual.

 

[MustangRyan]

Paddock didn't use a truck either, in spite of all those people leaving themselves exposed for hours.

Nobody would have anticipated a large vehicle barrelling through the crowd at 10:05pm. Given the fact that it was10:05 at night and as dark as one would expect for that time, it may well have been difficult to use firearms to full potential, what with the diminutive nature of the rounds, but the cab of a new Mitsubishi Fuso is 89 inches wide.

But no, he deemed the killing capacity of his guns to be sufficient.

If Stephen Paddock wanted to kill the most people possible, he would have flown one of his airplanes into the crowd. Flying a plane into the crowd would have certainly killed a much larger group of people, especially if he packed the plane with fuel and/or explosives.

The Las Vegas gunman had a pilot's license, access to two aircraft, and certainly the means, intelligence, and ability to do exactly this. However, he chose to perpetrate his spree with a less effective tool, firearms.

If he wanted to kill as many people as possible, you have to wonder why he didn't choose the airplane. He chose to use guns, presumably because he wanted to enjoy the act of killing people over several sustained minutes instead of just a few seconds, before ending his own life. You have to assume that he took a very sick pleasure in watching these people flee in fear, and drop by the hundreds. This guy clearly had a mental health problem.

The real question that should be asked is why he would do this at all. No one in their right mind thinks it's a good idea to go out and kill 1, 50, or 800 people. Killing is still illegal in this country, but that doesn't seem to stop the problem.

We are never going to remove every methodology of committing violence (guns, knives, fists, vehicles, pipes, boards, hammers, etc). How can we reduce the urge to kill or better identify high-risk cases before they snap? Everyone wants to point fingers at everyone else and have them ruthlessly investigated for showing any kind of red flags, but no one wants their own privacy invaded or rights reduced. We can't have it both ways.

Our society is no longer a polite society. Our children seem less empathetic towards others than in the recent past. This starts at home, and requires parents setting a far better example for how their children should behave and treat other people.

well any of the responsible gun owners here would tell you that should have been done, however the kid could have easily known how to get access. He's nearly 18 so in reality he shouldn't have ever taken guns that weren't his from the home, thus he should be charged with that too.

For those of us that choose to own guns, prevention to unauthorized access is the owner's #1 responsibility. Currently, there is no federal law, but several states have laws requiring the legal adult gun owner to reasonably prevent access to firearms to minors.
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/child-consumer-safety/child-access-prevention/

This is where I think we have the most room for improvement in a way that might make a meaningful impact.

Minors and felons can't legally purchase or possess firearms. I would support a law that said that any gun owner that insufficiently stores a firearm in such a way that it allows easy access to ANY unauthorized person would be charged with a low-grade felony.

If every legal gun owner that irresponsibly allowed unauthorized access to their firearms risked becoming a felon (and thus, no longer being eligible to own/purchase/possess guns), I think you would see a huge increase in firearms being responsibly locked away. This might prevent (or at least reasonably delay) some of the school shootings. Unfortunately, I honestly believe that the potential school shooters would just find other ways to bring harm to their classmates and teachers. Again, I think we really need to address the "why" more than the "how."

In my home, I have a .45 locked away in a biometric safe in my bedroom. It can only be opened by the fingerprint belonging to my wife or me. My 6 year old son cannot open it. In the event of an emergency, my wife or I can still open the safe in just a few seconds.

 

[TetsuKobura]

These statements are at odds with one another:

I took the last point of his original post as if it was sarcasm, so I was merely being sarcastic in reply. Still doesn’t take away from what I said about being fine with having a conversation.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

I took the last point of his original post as if it was sarcasm, so I was merely being sarcastic in reply. Still doesn’t take away from what I said about being fine with having a conversation.

Er, it sort of does.

If you considered the list sarcastic, responding in the same way is not about furthering a conversation, it's a "nuh-uh, you are". Disregarding it as "dumb" isn't conducive of a conversation either.

 

[McLaren]

People are coming to reality about guns

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...-guns-complicates-debate-over-assault-rifles/

This is kinda one of the bigger reasons a lot of people are against an AR ban. These are rarer of course, and the AR has certain perks over most guns, but I’ve always thought a location can allow something as “low key” as a pistol the same lethality such as Luby’s shooting in the early 90’s.

As someone said though early on about raising age limits, I am all for a 21 year old mandatory age to buy guns to combat rifle sales.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

For those of us that choose to own guns, prevention to unauthorized access is the owner's #1 responsibility. Currently, there is no federal law, but several states have laws requiring the legal adult gun owner to reasonably prevent access to firearms to minors.
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/child-consumer-safety/child-access-prevention/

This is where I think we have the most room for improvement in a way that might make a meaningful impact.

Minors and felons can't legally purchase or possess firearms. I would support a law that said that any gun owner that insufficiently stores a firearm in such a way that it allows easy access to ANY unauthorized person would be charged with a low-grade felony.

If every legal gun owner that irresponsibly allowed unauthorized access to their firearms risked becoming a felon (and thus, no longer being eligible to own/purchase/possess guns), I think you would see a huge increase in firearms being responsibly locked away. This might prevent (or at least reasonably delay) some of the school shootings. Unfortunately, I honestly believe that the potential school shooters would just find other ways to bring harm to their classmates and teachers. Again, I think we really need to address the "why" more than the "how."

In my home, I have a .45 locked away in a biometric safe in my bedroom. It can only be opened by the fingerprint belonging to my wife or me. My 6 year old son cannot open it. In the event of an emergency, my wife or I can still open the safe in just a few seconds.

Exactly my point, a true gun owner no matter the country even respects the ownership and part of that is realizing that these items should be secured safely.

However, my question would be what would be considered insufficient, should every owner have a gun safe or vault? Is a trigger lock enough? Or should they be in a drop case with a lock of some variety?

The next question would be, what if someone breaks into your home and steals them anyways and is able to break through these parameters. I've dealt with a few trigger locks that weren't all that great and then some that were, but still realized they could be dealt with if the gun was stolen. Also what if an owner does all this and the person stealing their gun is a family member.

Again I agree safety is paramount and part of that requires keeping them locked and safely away, but the people still taking them without permission are stealing to commit a crime.

 

[MustangRyan]

Exactly my point, a true gun owner no matter the country even respects the ownership and part of that is realizing that these items should be secured safely.

However, my question would be what would be considered insufficient, should every owner have a gun safe or vault? Is a trigger lock enough? Or should they be in a drop case with a lock of some variety?

The next question would be, what if someone breaks into your home and steals them anyways and is able to break through these parameters. I've dealt with a few trigger locks that weren't all that great and then some that were, but still realized they could be dealt with if the gun was stolen. Also what if an owner does all this and the person stealing their gun is a family member.

Again I agree safety is paramount and part of that requires keeping them locked and safely away, but the people still taking them without permission are stealing to commit a crime.

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/child-consumer-safety/safe-storage/

Common Exceptions
States allow several exceptions to their child access prevention laws. The most common exception applies where the firearm is stored in a locked container (California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina,44 Rhode Island, and Texas). Another common exception applies where the minor gains access to the firearm via illegal entry of the premises (California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Texas). Other exceptions include cases where the firearm is used for hunting, sport shooting or agricultural purposes, where the minor uses the gun in defense of self or others, where the firearm is used to aid law enforcement, or where the child has completed a firearm safety course.

Essentially, you would be protected from being charged if you made a reasonable attempt to secure your firearms. If stolen, they would need to be reported stolen immediately.

 

[PocketZeven]

I was talking about the 2nd Amendment, so I probably should've clarified, but okay.

Say the dad had a gun safe. As much as I am all for a safe rule for locking up guns, the kid could've found the key to it.


And you don't know anything about America's gun laws. Your point?

My point was that sensible gun control has been successful in other countries and they are not more dangerous then the US because of it. Going to school with armed guards around and metal detectors is not normal in Europe. Having to go to school everyday confronted with the real possibility of a mass shooting just makes me real sad for the children in the US. I have children myself and would move to another country if it got so far that their school needed metal detectors and armed guards. Also healthcare is a right... not a privilege!

 

[TetsuKobura]

My point was that sensible gun control has been successful in other countries and they are not more dangerous then the US because of it. Going to school with armed guards around and metal detectors is not normal in Europe. Having to go to school everyday confronted with the real possibility of a mass shooting just makes me real sad for the children in the US. I have children myself and would move to another country if it got so far that their school needed metal detectors and armed guards. Also healthcare is a right... not a privilege!

Again, no gun control law either added or enforced would've prevented this shooting. This guy had no red flags and yet was able to commit a catastrophe. And quit using the "we don't have it in x" argument, because we are not x and we will never be.

"healthcare is a right... not a privilege"
Completely wrong thread for this type of discussion, genius, but if you really want to go that far, it wasn't even bad before the ACA was implemented.