Well, that isn’t entirely true, 2VU. To say it " was possible because a parent had left their weapon in a non-secure setting" isn’t exactly accurate. The statement implies that had that weapon been completely secure that then it would have been impossible. No, it was possible because a person intent on shooting and killing people was willing to break multiple laws to make that intent a reality. Having an unsecured gun nearby only made committing the act easier.
You only have to break one link in the chain, younghoss. If someone shot up a Waffle House because they were willing to kill people, and because they could get a gun to do it, then you only have to stop them from getting the gun to stop the shooting. Someone who wants to shoot up a Waffle House, but who can’t get the guns, can’t shoot up a Waffle House, no matter their fell intent.
Making a crime more difficult to commit makes the crime less likely. A thief who wants to steal something, but finds it locked up, needs either to get through the security, or find another such item stored insecurely. Not all thieves are skilled or determined enough to be able to do either of these things.
Well you really have two types of crimes. Crimes of opportunity and pre-planed, determined types of crimes. Most simple security devices will deter the crimes of opportunity. It’s why we lock our cars and homes. Most criminals will move on. But the determined criminal will have figured out how to bypass security and get it done. That’s much harder to protect. If you get rid of all the guns, you will still have the black market to contend with.
No, I’m afraid I can’t agree, CF. Blocking one link won’t stop it. Someone intent on killing people has too many avenues besides one unsecured gun in the home. Breaking that link won’t stop it. There are too many ways for someone intending to commit a gun crime to obtain a gun- legally or not. There are too many other ways too, besides guns.
In the case of the most recent school shooting in my area (and it’s a sad thing to type most recent since we have to distinguish them), the 15 year old has evidently indicated that he just wanted to see what would happen if he took a gun to school and shot some fellow students. Personally, I suspect that if he hadn’t had easy access, this shooting wouldn’t have happened as he didn’t do it in response to any specific incident.
“That’s much harder to protect. If you get rid of all the guns, you will still have the black market to contend with.”
“No, I’m afraid I can’t agree, CF. Blocking one link won’t stop it. Someone intent on killing people has too many avenues besides one unsecured gun in the home. Breaking that link won’t stop it. There are too many ways for someone intending to commit a gun crime to obtain a gun- legally or not. There are too many other ways too, besides guns.”
Yet, it seems to work in other countries. How do you explain that away? And, even if not perfect, isn’t it worth trying to at least prevent some? I’m tired of the excuse making. I’m sure the victims’ families are much more fed up than I am.
I saw a tweet today that said “My favorite thing about summertime in America is that kids don’t have to worry about getting shot at school.”
That is a true and pathetic statement.
I am convinced that we need a multi-faceted approach to improving the problems we have with gun violence. I say improving instead of curing, because I recognize we will never completely eliminate mass shootings, suicide, or any of our other gun related problems. However, doing nothing will get us just that in terms of making progress. We have to try things in order to make a dent. And, we have to enable the ability to collect and analyze data on this problem. Facts shouldn’t scare us.
I also believe a multifaceted approach is needed.
I think that part of the multifaceted approach should be picking apart crimes after they occur and determining which elements were preventable. Here are some examples: Was the assailant mentally ill? Was the illness diagnosed or only suspected? If the person was mentally ill, was the mental illness treatable and was the person receiving treatment at the time of the crime? Did the assailant communicate about his or her plans? If yes, how were these messages dealt with? Did the assailant have a criminal record? If yes, did the person comply with the terms of any sentence?
Many other questions and their answers will be relevant, too.
There are often ways to prevent crimes but only if the public and law enforcement authorities know the warning signs and know what to do when they appear.
The type of “mass shootings” the media perseverates on are statistical anomalies when it comes to gun violence in America.
Legislating against them takes energy and effort away from the more pervasive gun problems we have in this country.
Until we are willing to look at the incidents and drill down to the root cause, we will get nowhere. One common thing that seems to keep appearing is “red flags” with the perpetrator – comments, facebook posts, etc. – and lack of any follow up on those issues.
Being very careful here, not to give an opinion, but making any kind of broad, serious changes to gun laws might first require a change to the second amendment. Not an opinion, just a matter of Civics.
“Red flag” laws, that deny guns to people considered dangerous for one reason or another, are constitutional. Laws about liability would be constitutional as well.
Stealing a known insecurely stored gun is easier than other ways:
- Buy a gun. Costs money. Also must pass a background check, or (if the perp has a disqualifying history) must find a background check loophole or a seller willing to disobey the law in this respect.
- Steal a gun. In most cases, the perp would not know where a stealable gun is and what security is around it. Obviously, there is a risk of getting caught in the act of burglary trying to find and steal a gun. If the gun is known, but locked up, more skill is needed to get through the security to steal the gun.
Yes, other weapons can be used besides guns, but they may not be as effective or more easily defended against (e.g. hand weapons), or carry other risks to the user (e.g. bombs may be detonated accidentally).
Or are you arguing that any security against theft (of anything, not just guns) is pointless because some of the thieves will be able to defeat the security or find what they want to steal elsewhere, even though some thieves lack the skill or motivation to do so and are thus prevented from stealing?
I am arguing, UCB, Cf’s comment that you only have to break one link in a chain to stop it. Specifically, it was referencing a fellow grabbing an unsecured gun. It is my position that even if this gun had been secured(breaking one link) that many other avenues existed the the fellow could have chosen as an alternative and still carried out his plan.
“We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book.”
–President Obama, remarks at memorial service in Dallas, July 12, 2016
But hyperbole like that are part of the problem. All or nothing ism. The President is making a point with rhetoric. But what he says isn’t true based on facts. But it’s making a directional point worth noting. However we need to move away from absolutes. It will just push everyone further away from each other and further away from realistic solutions.
But with lower probability of success than stealing an easily accessible unsecured gun in a known location.
Securing your property (not restricted to guns) may not prevent all thieves from stealing it, but will prevent some thieves from stealing it, and/or reduce the amount stolen if a thief does compromise some of the security measures.
Or do you leave your house, car, guns, etc. unlocked when unattended because you feel that there is no point in securing your property?