# 27 dead, 18 children **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 14, 2012, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/27-dead-18-children/644050 "2012-12-14T18:38:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2012, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/27-dead-18-children/644050/361 "2012-12-15T14:31:55Z")
> [@olivesmarch4th](#): > > I’m so F\*\*cking sick of politics. We’ve sunken so low as a people that we can’t even wait for children’s corpses to cool before we start arguing about gun control laws. I tend to agree with [Ezra Klein’s take](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/) on the situation when he recalled being lambasted for posting gun statistics “too soon” after Aurora: > [@](#): > > When we first collected much of this data, it was after the Aurora, Colo. shootings, and the air was thick with calls to avoid “politicizing” the tragedy. That is code, essentially, for “don’t talk about reforming our gun control laws.” > > Let’s be clear: That is a form of politicization. When political actors construct a political argument that threatens political consequences if other political actors pursue a certain political outcome, that is, almost by definition, a politicization of the issue. It’s just a form of politicization favoring those who prefer the status quo to stricter gun control laws. > > […] > > If roads were collapsing all across the United States, killing dozens of drivers, we would surely see that as a moment to talk about what we could do to keep roads from collapsing. If terrorists were detonating bombs in port after port, you can be sure Congress would be working to upgrade the nation’s security measures. If a plague was ripping through communities, public-health officials would be working feverishly to contain it. > > Only with gun violence do we respond to repeated tragedies by saying that mourning is acceptable but discussing how to prevent more tragedies is not. “Too soon,” howl supporters of loose gun laws. But as others have observed, talking about how to stop mass shootings in the aftermath of a string of mass shootings isn’t “too soon.” It’s much too late. IOW: Screaming “don’t politicize it” is actually a form of politicizing it. And there’s nothing wrong with politicizing it in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2012, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/27-dead-18-children/644050/362 "2012-12-15T14:37:25Z")
> [@Eliahna](#): > > Yeah, and when a 90 year old woman dies in her bed in her sleep, her family are all “She was old; It was her time; She had a good life” but if someone murders her in her bed her family are all “She was our world; How could you take her from us; How do we live without her”. What’s up with that? Because she didn’t die in her sleep and therefore it wasn’t “her time” in a pretty important sense of the words. Do you suck at this or was there a deliberate irony to this post I am missing? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2012, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/27-dead-18-children/644050/363 "2012-12-15T14:42:01Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > It is not because of what was written 250 years ago. You will not repeal the 2nd because the majority of citizens in US doesn’t want it repealed. Stolen from a FB post Re: 2nd Amendment: > [@](#): > > “I wouldn’t change a word of it. I only wish the NRA and its jellyfishy, well-paid supporters in legislatures both State and Federal would be careful to recite the whole of it, and then tell us how a heavily armed man, woman, or child, recruited by no official, led by no official, given no goals by any official, motivated or restrained only by his or her personality and perceptions of what is going on, can be considered a member of a well-regulated militia.” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2012, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/27-dead-18-children/644050/364 "2012-12-15T14:54:45Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Focusing on gun control would be the lifeline you threw the republican party, which would allow them to get back in power and cause much more damage than the lack of gun control would. It has become very obvious to the democratic party that gun control is a losing issue. You would do more harm than good to push it. This is a very astute observation and I agree with it completely. I mean, look at the way that Republicans have gone about handling their own social bugaboo pet issue abortion: record-setting numbers of regulations at the state level in states that went red in 2010, vocal support to ending abortion through TRAP laws in states as disparate as Mississippi and Michigan, tons of extreme bills - almost all proposed by the Republican Vice Presidential nominee - at the Federal level. If Democrats went after gun control the same way that Republicans went after abortion, it would have had the same polarizing effect as it did to the Republicans in 2012. Had the Tea Party brigade just stuck to their promises of economic austerity and tax reforms and American Exceptionalism and avoided abortion, maybe 2012 turns out a little differently. Just as how, had Obama not completely let down those who thought he would be tough on guns by instead expanding gun rights and instead took major stances to deal with guns, it might have been enough to swing the election towards Romney. (The fact that the NRA still screamed that Obama wanted your guns - evidence being _he hasn’t taken them yet_ - or that Romney signed an assault rifle ban into law just shows how silly the whole debate has become. But that’s another issue.) It sucks that taking a stand on an important issue can mean political suicide. But that may be the case with guns for Dems just as it was for abortion with Repubs. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2012, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/27-dead-18-children/644050/365 "2012-12-15T14:56:27Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > A lot of people who vote Democrat don’t agree, seeing as how spree murders and dead children are sort of a losing issue and this situation doesn’t seem to be getting better as gun laws get more and more lax. This is true. However what I think \*\*SenorBeef \*\*meant wasn’t that it was a losing issue for Democratic voters, but a losing issue for the Democratic party. Those pesky independents and all… ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2012, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/27-dead-18-children/644050/366 "2012-12-15T15:02:33Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Stolen from a FB post Re: 2nd Amendment: Yup, but that just shows what a piss-poor job was made of writing the Second, because it sloppily doesn’t say anything like “The people shall have the right to form a well-regulated militia and keep and bear arms as members in good standing of the same”, it just says such a militia is essential to the security of a free state and, with no further connection made, the people shall have the right to keep and bear arms. Seriously, these guys were the best political brains of their generation? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2012, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/27-dead-18-children/644050/367 "2012-12-15T15:11:58Z")
> [@Ferret\_Herder](#): > > Latest news reports say they were his mom’s guns, but fuck if they’ve gotten anything else about this story right on the first try today. Yeah, that seems to be the case. I really have zero desire to blame the victim. I think it’s repugnant for almost all crimes and especially so for sex crimes where it is prevalent. So I am not blaming the shooter’s mother who was supposedly killed away from the school. And I have to make some assumptions which are based on preliminary reports. However, what we have here is a woman with a 20 year old son with a history of mental illness who also happened to have a legally obtained arsenal at her disposal. Even the most responsible gun owner can have their weapons stolen; even the best trained shooter can have their guns turned on them. My son has mental health issues. Even if I felt I needed a gun, that alone would be enough to make sure I turned them all in. I think that a great many gun owners fail to ask themselves who else has access to their firearms and how likely it is those without access can gain it. And that’s a problem. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2012, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/27-dead-18-children/644050/368 "2012-12-15T15:14:02Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Occasionally, the Tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of children. Or so I am told. And, IMHO, sooner or later, we’re going to reach the tipping point and decide that that damn tree needs the second branch trimmed off at the trunk. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2012, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/27-dead-18-children/644050/369 "2012-12-15T15:27:37Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > The gunnies are certainly making the case for it, aren’t they? They’re saying that nothing else will work, that there’s no point in even trying lesser measures. If you believe they know their stuff, and aren’t just throwing a bunch of BS at us, it certainly makes sense. Are they? I’ve actually said in this thread we should try limiting access to people who shouldn’t have guns in the first place. That’s a reasonable approach, and “banning all guns” is not reasonable. As another poster even pointed out, I was wrong in how strict I thought the UK’s gun laws were, and they **are** pretty much the strictest of any democratic country. You guys are just not being realistic if you think we’ll ever have gun control in America such that we have the strictest in the Western world. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2012, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/27-dead-18-children/644050/370 "2012-12-15T15:29:22Z")
> [@drewtwo99](#): > > In spite of being a pretty liberal guy myself in many ways, I’ve always been supportive of gun ownership rights. I think a happy compromise would be what many other countries have done: ban handgun ownership and sales entirely. Keep rifles and shotguns around for hunting and personal defense. I don’t honestly care if they aren’t as good at defense as a handgun is. > > Now, will a handgun ban prevent every mass shooting in America? No, obviously not. But I think it would be a good compromise, and would vastly lower the amount of killing. > > Of course, you have the problem that there are already so many handguns in this country, it might be difficult to ever get rid of them all, thus ensuring that the only people who have them are the hardened criminals. So even then, I’m not sure if a handgun ban is really all that practical. Why should we ban handguns? Most of Europe hasn’t. Again, you guys talking about bans are simply ignorant on how gun control works around the world, so much so I’m not sure you can say you have reasoned opinions on the matter. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2012, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/27-dead-18-children/644050/371 "2012-12-15T15:29:26Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > OK, then ban speed loaders too. And limit magazines to 6 rounds. No, it still won’t prevent ALL the killings. Might slow 'em down a bit. I think that’s worth doing. You don’t, or you’re offended by the meager imposition on your ‘rights,’ whichever. That’s the difference between you and me. If I thought it would be effective at preventing or even slowing what happened yesterday, I might be okay with it. But with my knowledge and experience with firearms, I don’t think that it will. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > Well the bit about the school counselor proves…what? That somebody dropped the ball? I’d like a cite that HIPAA prevents anyone from saying to the proper authorities, “this person shouldn’t be allowed to buy a gun.” [HIPPA.](http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/summary/index.html) I’m not an expert, but I see no provisions for revealing info on a person a health care provider suspects might commit a crime. So the Colorado school counselor’s hand’s may have been tied anyway. Any Health Care Professional Dopers who want to jump in here wrt HIPPA, and how it might relate to identifying and preventing spree-killers, would be welcome. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > Of course, without gun registration, that wouldn’t do shit anyway; you just go down to the gun show and buy your arsenal there. (Yeah, I know, there’s no gun show loophole. You can just buy a lot of guns there without restrictions on the transfer.) As someone who has assuredly attended a lot more gun shows that you’ve even heard of, I can unequivocally say…you’re somewhat correct. The ones I attend locally have been doing a fantastic job, in coopoeration with law enforcement, of banning private sales on show grounds (typically a convention center or VFW/AMLeg. Hall). This does not keep private sales from being _arranged_ at the show between private individuals (not dealers), and taken off-grounds to happen anyway. Other shows I have attended, this is much less the case. If it’s any comfort at all, it’s the actual licensed dealers who have been leading the charge on cracking down on private sales at gun shows; part of it is the business competition, but it has a _lot_ to do with the bad publicity and LEO scrutiny they undergo as a result, for something they aren’t even engaged in. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > So…what are you proposing - that the media suspend their normal judgment of what’s newsworthy when it involves a gun? Obviously, this is not going to happen, as the media is only responding to market forces. We, you, me, J.Q. Public, are to blame , for being media-junkies and sitting glued to our TV sets when this kind of shit happens. That’s tens, if not hundreds of millions of people “tuned in,” and no network is going to let the ad revenue stream go to waste, so they go into “24-hour” coverage mode, which in turn helps feed the next maladjusted whack-job out there thinking “fuckitall!” I apologize in advance for the analogy I’m about to make; it’s the best I could quickly think of “on the fly” here at my keyboard. The spree-killers are like children throwing a tantrum. The way I was brought up, a tantrum got you a few swift whacks on the hiney, then stood in the corner until one could behave themselves. For spree-killers: analogy FAIL. Another school of thought for children throwing a tantrum is to ignore them; they’ll realize they aren’t getting the attention they desire, and try a different tack. Unfortunately, again, analogy fail. We can’t ignore a sree-killer in media res, hoping the next one will go, “Huh. They ignored him. Guess I oughta go talk to a shrink.” But if we the public could turn our collective backs to them _afterwards_, by _not_ tuning in to the incessant, erroneous-update-of-the-minute-endless-talking-heads-24-hour-media-cycle, we _might_, just _maybe_, slow these people down. Not an effective solution, or a serious proposal on my part. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > I’d actually be good with that, if HIPAA is actually a problem - \*as long as we can keep the people reported as potential threats from buying guns in the first place. \* Because, you know, that would be _something_, and something’s better than nothing. The current federal regulatory scheme controlling/prohibiting people with mental disorders from purchasing any gun is the Gun Control Act of 1968; a person has to be declared, _abjudicated_, mentally defective by a judge, for them to be prohibited from owning or transacting firearms. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2012, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/27-dead-18-children/644050/372 "2012-12-15T15:53:12Z")
The biggest problem America has is it can’t discuss gun control _de novo_, and we already have an insane amount of guns inside the country. If we adopted a stricter licensing regime, focused more along what I consider “common sense” European lines like you find in the Scandinavian countries or etc, I think that’d be perfectly fine. I don’t have a problem with someone demonstrating competency to own a firearm anymore than I have a problem with them doing the same to drive a car. But the problem is, there are so many guns present now this gun control regime would not significantly impede access. The gun involved in this shooting might not pass a psychological fitness exam to get such a license, but his mom already had guns that he obviously had no problem taking. So while I think European licensing regimes are reasonable and even desirable, something has to be done in addition to that licensing regime to deal with our current guns. I think gun storage laws would do the trick Personally I’d say we have to get serious about gun storage. Basically: 1. All guns must be stored in a locked safe other than a single weapon you can have registered as a “home defense weapon.” This weapon can be a pump-action shotgun with a maximum capacity of four shells, double-barreled shotgun or single shot shotgun, or it can be a revolver. You can only store it outside the safe while you are physically present at the residence. 2. All ammunition purchases must be regulated. The individual licensing regime I mentioned has to come into play. You should require a license for each gun you own and the “master gun owner license.” You must present you owner license when buying ammunition and the specific firearm license, the specific firearm license must match the ammunition you are buying. So no buying a box of .357 rounds if the only firearm you are licensed to own is a .22LR target pistol. 3. Ammunition storage requirements are that you must not have any ammunition not under lock and key in a certified gun safe. Aside from the rounds in your home defense weapon. With the home defense weapon, if it is a revolver you are not permitted to store extra ammunition outside the safe. If it is a single shot or double barrel shotgun you may store a maximum of 4 extra rounds. If it is a pump action shotgun you may not store extra rounds outside the safe. 4. Penalties for violating the storage requirements (firearm or ammo) will be a very large fine on first offense, and a six month period during which you may not legally transport any of your firearms and any carry license you have is suspended one year. A second offense is a larger fine, impoundment of all your firearms with a court or police authority for one year, and all licenses to own or carry are revoked. You must satisfy various educational requirements relating to gun storage to get your ownership license back, and your carry license(s) may only be returned if you can convince a review board you deserve one. Third offense is permanent forfeiture of all owned firearms, and a lifetime prohibition on firearm ownership. 5. If any of your weapons are ever found in the possession of another person, that is an offense equivalent to a third strike storage offense, and you will have a permanent forfeiture of all firearms and loss of right to own any firearms. The only exceptions will be theft of the weapon from your locked safe, that has been properly reported to police or certain “extraordinary circumstances.” (Basically a person uses compulsion of some sort to force you to give them one of your weapons, ex. they brandish a knife at you or etc.) Further, if any of your weapons are used in a crime and that weapon was not stolen from you or acquired through some extraordinary circumstance you will be criminally liable as if you actually participated in the crime the gun was involved in. Over time, I think such storage laws would “fix” the gun supply problem. America would become more like other countries, guns are available but they’re a bitch to own bureaucratically. So only people that really want a gun will have them. The licensing process itself will do a decent job of making sure those people aren’t the sort we don’t want to have guns in the first place. Guns combined with the passions of young men are a disaster, for example, and the licensing requirements should be significantly higher for young men. I’d even go as far to say young men should only be permitted to own long rifles or shotguns and should only be permitted to use them as hunting weapons and should be barred from even a self defense weapon until they reach a certain age. The day after such laws passed, they would not have significant impact. But over time, as more people grow up under such laws, most young people aside from avid hunters won’t bother getting guns. A few collectors will emerge and etc, but that’s fine. Make getting a license to own guns about as hard as it is to deal with the DMV (even my proposals are not any more onerous than the process of moving to a new State, and having to register your vehicle, get a new driver’s license, get a new title in your new state etc) and casual gun buyers will evaporate. With the storage laws, a lot of the “undesirables” will slowly lose their guns. When police show up at a house for various calls (drug possession, domestic violence etc) the improper storage that goes along with people doing those things will result in them losing the guns they have. A few nationally covered cases of gun owners who chose not to follow the law, and their gun was taken by a relative and used in a serious crime, and the gun owner being prosecuted for that crime as if he were an accomplice will also result in even many of the most foolish gun owners getting serious about gun storage. ---
**Author:** ![Hbns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hbns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hbns)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2012, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/27-dead-18-children/644050/373 "2012-12-15T16:04:02Z")
But Martin, that will take too loooong. We demand a quick fix. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2012, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/27-dead-18-children/644050/374 "2012-12-15T16:17:38Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > The gun involved in this shooting might not pass a psychological fitness exam to get such a license, but his mom already had guns that he obviously had no problem taking. Well, none of _my_ guns can pass a psycholigical fitness exam; where are _you_ buying _yours??_ > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > 1. All guns must be stored in a locked safe other than a single weapon you can have registered as a “home defense weapon.” This weapon can be a pump-action shotgun with a maximum capacity of four shells, double-barreled shotgun or single shot shotgun, or it can be a revolver. You can only store it outside the safe while you are physically present at the residence. Not a bad start; it’s my de facto “armed state:” everything unloaded and locked in a gun safe. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > 1. All ammunition purchases must be regulated. The individual licensing regime I mentioned has to come into play. You should require a license for each gun you own and the “master gun owner license.” You must present you owner license when buying ammunition and the specific firearm license, the specific firearm license must match the ammunition you are buying. So no buying a box of .357 rounds if the only firearm you are licensed to own is a .22LR target pistol. Instead of a sparate license for each gun, how about a license listing every firearm the holder owns? That way, when I goto buy a bulk box of .22L, and see that there a good deal on .38SP as well, I can buy both without digging through numerous cards or going DOH! :smack: I left my .38SP card at home. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > 1. Ammunition storage requirements are that you must not have any ammunition not under lock and key in a certified gun safe. Aside from the rounds in your home defense weapon. With the home defense weapon, if it is a revolver you are not permitted to store extra ammunition outside the safe. If it is a single shot or double barrel shotgun you may store a maximum of 4 extra rounds. If it is a pump action shotgun you may not store extra rounds outside the safe. Is “loose ammo” a crime problem that’s slipped below my radar? > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > 1. Penalties for violating the storage requirements (firearm or ammo) will be a very large fine on first offense, and a six month period during which you may not legally transport any of your firearms and any carry license you have is suspended one year. A second offense is a larger fine, impoundment of all your firearms with a court or police authority for one year, and all licenses to own or carry are revoked. You must satisfy various educational requirements relating to gun storage to get your ownership license back, and your carry license(s) may only be returned if you can convince a review board you deserve one. Third offense is permanent forfeiture of all owned firearms, and a lifetime prohibition on firearm ownership. No real problem with this. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > 1. If any of your weapons are ever found in the possession of another person, that is an offense equivalent to a third strike storage offense, and you will have a permanent forfeiture of all firearms and loss of right to own any firearms. Hmmm. I would amend this such that “anyone caught in criminal possession.” This way, a friend or family member (who is otherwise legally licensed to possess) can borrow one of my rifles for deer season. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > \*\*(5. continued - ExT)\*\*The only exceptions will be theft of the weapon from your locked safe, that has been properly reported to police or certain “extraordinary circumstances.” (Basically a person uses compulsion of some sort to force you to give them one of your weapons, ex. they brandish a knife at you or etc.) Or you come home from a week long vacation and find tyour properly secured gun safe has been ripped out, or torched open, and all your guns are gone. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > \*\*(5. continued - ExT)\*\*Further, if any of your weapons are used in a crime and that weapon was not stolen from you or acquired through some extraordinary circumstance you will be criminally liable as if you actually participated in the crime the gun was involved in. Again, no problem there. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Over time, I think such storage laws would “fix” the gun supply problem. America would become more like other countries, guns are available but they’re a bitch to own bureaucratically. So only people that really want a gun will have them. The licensing process itself will do a decent job of making sure those people aren’t the sort we don’t want to have guns in the first place. Guns combined with the passions of young men are a disaster, for example, and the licensing requirements should be significantly higher for young men. I’d even go as far to say young men should only be permitted to own long rifles or shotguns and should only be permitted to use them as hunting weapons and should be barred from even a self defense weapon until they reach a certain age. Current federal law limits handgun possession to 21 y/o+. So what happens when a 22 y/o commits a crime? Bump the age? And so on until only 80 y/o people can own a gun? > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > The day after such laws passed, they would not have significant impact. But over time, as more people grow up under such laws, most young people aside from avid hunters won’t bother getting guns. A few collectors will emerge and etc, but that’s fine. Make getting a license to own guns about as hard as it is to deal with the DMV (even my proposals are not any more onerous than the process of moving to a new State, and having to register your vehicle, get a new driver’s license, get a new title in your new state etc) and casual gun buyers will evaporate. Except that the very licensing proposals you put forth have been coopted by people politically averse to gun ownership, and such licensing offices have their budgets cut, are only open every other Wednesday in odd-numbered months, etc. I exaggerate, but not by much. You reduce a right to a politically expedient bureaucratic hurdle that can be moved at will by bureacrats. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > With the storage laws, a lot of the “undesirables” will slowly lose their guns. When police show up at a house for various calls (drug possession, domestic violence etc) the improper storage that goes along with people doing those things will result in them losing the guns they have. A few nationally covered cases of gun owners who chose not to follow the law, and their gun was taken by a relative and used in a serious crime, and the gun owner being prosecuted for that crime as if he were an accomplice will also result in even many of the most foolish gun owners getting serious about gun storage. IANAL, much less a prosecutor, but I believe that there are already laws on the books allowing prosecutors to go after such people. They typically don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2012, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/27-dead-18-children/644050/375 "2012-12-15T16:29:36Z")
As full of despair and rage as I am, I am grateful to the gun advocates for voicing reasonable measures to be taken. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Enola\_Gay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ab097/32.png) [@Enola\_Gay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enola_Gay)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2012, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/27-dead-18-children/644050/376 "2012-12-15T16:53:00Z")
> [@faithfool](#): > > If you put him on ignore, it’s like he’s completely evaporated into thin air. You’ll never have to read that fucking disgusting drivel again. Yeah, but think of the entertainment you are missing. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > That’s because when they are owning, shooting and “fondling” : their guns, it’s because they are appreciating the beauty and precision and workmanship that went into making them, and the forces that come into play when they’re fired, all of which are very cool and fun to experience. The last thing most of them are thinking as they are owning, shooting and “fondling” their guns is that they’re designed to kill people. Exactly! And when you are raping little boys in the shower, you are appreciating the beauty and precision of your craft, which is very cool and fun to experience. The last thing most pedophiles are thinking of while fondling their goods is that they are hurting children. > [@Morgenstern](#): > > I’m just curious, what good and wonderful thing did a conservative focus on today while the rest of us liberals were grieving over the loss of so many innocent lives? Well it’s only a matter of time before those 20 kids grew up and had abortions or ended up on the public dole. > [@bucketybuck](#): > > Oh, sure thats ok then. > > Decide you want to go kill some kids, just raid your moms odds and ends drawer and get her guns, no problem. One question I haven’t heard an answer to: WTF is a kindergarten teacher doing with automatic weapons anyway? Throw a mentally ill son into the mix and it boggles the mind. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2012, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/27-dead-18-children/644050/377 "2012-12-15T17:06:15Z")
I haven’t read any other post since my post in this thread, so I have no idea if someone has spelled this out. It just occurred to me, and I wanted to post it before reading further. In the cold light of day, I have realized that I was horribly unfair to **Kimmy\_Gibbler** in this thread last night. I may not particularly like the guy, but it was my anger over this situation that clouded my judgment, making me think there was only one possible explanation for his posts. There is an obvious other reason for him to be acting like this. It’s specifically BECAUSE he has empathy that he is trying to do something about this, and he’s projecting his anger at other people that he sees as getting in the way. Thus he was genuinely trying to contain his anger and be nice to **Olives** , and not just saying it to make him look better. He may not act the way I think he should in other instances, but there was nothing wrong here. I apologize wholeheartedly. But **Crafter Man** can still go fuck a cactus. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2012, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/27-dead-18-children/644050/378 "2012-12-15T17:07:03Z")
> [@Enola\_Gay](#): > > One question I haven’t heard an answer to: WTF is a kindergarten teacher doing with automatic weapons anyway? Throw a mentally ill son into the mix and it boggles the mind. Not automatic, [as in \*fully-\*automatic.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kzfm4pYhIyY) “Auto” is typically, in gun-speak (and erroneous media reports), a semi-auto. One pull of the trigger, one round dicharged. Trigger must be released (the amount varies) to “reset” before it can be pulled again, dicharging another round. It is still possible to fire fairly rapidly; I’ve seen highly skilled and _exceptionally_ well-trained military and police operators who get nearly full-auto rate of fire out of semi-auto firearms, and still maintain acceptable accuracy. For the overwhelming bulk of most mere mortals (myself included), that rate-of-fire is attainable only if you don’t mind spraying bullets everywhere in a barely controlled, mostly unaimed (as in, “I’m inside the barn, aiming at the barn wall, and getting a couple of hits every now and then”) spray. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2012, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/27-dead-18-children/644050/379 "2012-12-15T17:09:23Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > Well, none of _my_ guns can pass a psycholigical fitness exam; where are _you_ buying _yours??_ That was a typo, was supposed to be “guy” not “gun.” > [@](#): > > Not a bad start; it’s my de facto “armed state:” everything unloaded and locked in a gun safe. Right, these regulations are based off what I consider to be reasonable European gun laws and most serious gun enthusiasts in the United States already practice many of them and also aren’t the ones causing problems with guns. > [@](#): > > Instead of a sparate license for each gun, how about a license listing every firearm the holder owns? That way, when I goto buy a bulk box of .22L, and see that there a good deal on .38SP as well, I can buy both without digging through numerous cards or going DOH! :smack: I left my .38SP card at home. This is 2012+, no reason not to have one single card that can list all licenses or even no physical card at all and a fully electronic system which can let the merchant look you up as long as they verify identity. But the separate license is more a requirement that before you purchase any gun, you have to get an individual firearm ownership license granting you authority to buy that specific gun. That means you have to go through the individual gun licensing process every time you buy a gun. But no reason to make someone carry lots of physical paper licenses. > [@](#): > > Is “loose ammo” a crime problem that’s slipped below my radar? It’s part of the comprehensive reforms I was suggesting. So I’m stipulating a right to keep a “home defense” firearm out of a gun safe, but even a pump action shotgun can be used for grave harm if someone takes it out of your house. If you have a limit on how much loose ammo is laying around, then even if they steal your home defense weapon there is a limit on how many times they can fire it. If they steal it and 1,000 shells that’s a big problem. > [@](#): > > Hmmm. I would amend this such that “anyone caught in criminal possession.” This way, a friend or family member (who is otherwise legally licensed to possess) can borrow one of my rifles for deer season. I would not permit gun loaning. I’d stipulate you may allow someone to use your gun while hunting or sport/target shooting if you are physically present at the range or hunting with the person in question and that person is a licensed gun owner. > [@](#): > > Or you come home from a week long vacation and find tyour properly secured gun safe has been ripped out, or torched open, and all your guns are gone. Right, I’m willing to put reasonable exceptions in place for holding people responsible whose guns are used for crime or whose guns are stolen. But the general concept is, you have a legal responsibility to immediately report when they are gone, and to keep them locked so someone can’t just take them out of a drawer. > [@](#): > > Current federal law limits handgun possession to 21 y/o+. So what happens when a 22 y/o commits a crime? Bump the age? And so on until only 80 y/o people can own a gun? I’d aim for age 25, not 21 or 22. Before age 25 is when most young men go to prison, for example. Prisoners are much less likely to reoffend as criminals when they are older. I don’t propose regulations in response to a spree shooting, but a lot of spree shooters are unstable and under 25 as well. Basically anyone under the age of 25 it should be much more difficult for them to get and use guns. > [@](#): > > Except that the very licensing proposals you put forth have been coopted by people politically averse to gun ownership, and such licensing offices have their budgets cut, are only open every other Wednesday in odd-numbered months, etc. I exaggerate, but not by much. You reduce a right to a politically expedient bureaucratic hurdle that can be moved at will by bureacrats. Sure, but even in countries like Germany, Switzerland etc that have adopted such laws it doesn’t appear the goal was an outright ban. So I don’t have a problem with anti-gun people as long as they aren’t going for outright bans of all guns or what I consider to be silly/stupid bans of “specific types of scary guns.” ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2012, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/27-dead-18-children/644050/380 "2012-12-15T17:11:15Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Here we go. And how often do you really think it is the gun nuts doing these shootings? Most spree shootings in America have not been committed by gun nuts, but by people who acquire the weapon specifically to do the shooting. > > It appears the shooter in this case used his parents weapons. Holmes in Aurora, CO bought his weapons specifically for the shooting. Loughner acquired his gun exclusively for the shooting. Scott Evans appeared to use two normal enough pistols and was not a gun nut (he had also suffered an injury 4 years before that many said changed his personality, such things are not unknown in psychology literature). Jiverly Wong appears to have been a gun store regular, and might qualify as a gun nut. Michael McClendon appears to have only had two guns before he started planning his acts, and then acquired some semiautomatic rifles and DVDs containing combat training. > > By and large I think of gun nuts as people that are “nutty for guns”, they own a lot of them, are unhealthily obsessed with them, collect them, devote more than normal time to guns and gun dealings etc. I’m not seeing much evidence these people are the ones responsible for these sort of shootings. If we had a gun culture in the United Sates based on hunting and target shooting it would be one thing, but we have a bunch of nuts who think that they need guns to protect us from the government, fight off UN troops, and protect their homes. All of these obsessions are related to human targets. They have created a society which accepts the premise that we need to have weapons around to kill people. Are there any other first world countries that have this chilling, sociopathic mindset? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/27-dead-18-children/644050.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/27-dead-18-children/644050.md?page=20)