I am arguing the “one link broken” stops it idea. You would have us believe, UCB, that if a guy wanted to be a car thief, and tried to steal my car first but found it was locked, then he could not be a car thief. That is CF’s one link broken supposition. No. He might put greater effort into getting mine, or might try a dozen other cars parked on the street. He might even buy a car legally, if he wanted a car.
If a guy is willing to break the law by shooting people, it is reasonable to believe he’d also be willing to obtain a gun even if that meant breaking a law to do so.
Like privatebanker, I’m arguing it isn’t all or nothing. Securing that one particular gun is not likely to have prevented this one particular shooting.
If all of the cars are locked, then the thief has a lower chance of successfully stealing one compared to if one or more of them is unlocked with the key in it. It is not a given that a thief will be able to steal something. Not all thieves are skilled enough to circumvent locks and other security measures around the things that they want to steal.
It would have removed the most easily accessible gun, so that the suspect would have had to buy or steal some other gun, with a lower chance of success.
Actually figuring out what leads someone to decide to kill a bunch of people would be useful and I think everyone could agree on that as a worthwhile endeavor. I do think that some people(like my ex-husband) should not be allowed to own a gun, but they can still get one if the want it badly enough. As far as getting rid of guns, I don’t think that will ever happen, not even considering illegal guns. I know lots of people with lots of guns and I don’t know any of them that would be likely to peacefully surrender their guns, an attempt at gun confiscation is likely to lead to a civil war, at least from my viewpoint.
Any child can walk into a gun show in Texas and walk out with a semi-automatic weapon. No background check, no minimum age, nothing. It Is actually surprising that schools aren’t shot up every day, but we are moving towards that.
@Time2Shine, we need more people like you committed to safe storage. I don’t know any actual stats about how safe storage would impact deaths and injuries, but if it only saves a small percentage, isn’t it worth it to make it an expectation of gun ownership? When I hear stories like the one linked below (an 11 year old boy shoots his 6 year old sister), I feel like we have to take some action to minimize this type of shooting. This family is living a trauma that will never go away even if the little girl recovers physically. https://www.kentucky.com/news/state/article201612144.html
Only a personal transfer at a gun show could proceed without a background check.
Most personal transfers happen independently of gun shows.
Any firearm purchased from an FFL(Federal Firearm License) dealer MUST pass through the NICS(National Instant Criminal Background Checks System) process.
A seller in any personal transfer is legally required to check the identification of the person they sell a firearm to. If that person sells a rifle or shotgun to anyone under the age of 18 they are breaking both state and federal laws. The same applies if they sell a handgun to anyone under 21.
@2VU0609 I’m all for protecting people, especially the children, from accidental death due to unsecured firearms.
I am also sympathetic to those that counter they can’t access their firearm in an emergency situation if it’s locked away somewhere, but that can be easily rectified with a small $50-$200 safe placed in a convenient, concealed location.
Gun owners should be personally liable if their gun in a gun shooting, unless they have reported it stolen. If a child gets hold of their unsecured gun and shoots another child or themselves, if a potential suicide impulsively takes their gun and shoots himself (or herself, but more typically himself), if a mass shooter uses their guns, they should be personally liable.
Those people who believe that criminals and suicides would just get another gun somewhere else should put their money where their mouth is.
Wrong, @time2shine. There is no federal minimum age for sale of a long gun by unlicensed persons, such as at a gun show, of which we have many here in Texas. And long gun possession is permitted at any age under Texas state law with parental consent, and at age 18 without parental consent. So yes, little boys walk out of gun shows with dangerous weapons all the time here. Don’t confuse how you wish the laws were with how they really are. There is an excellent video on YouTube of a little boy in Virginia trying to buy cigarettes, beer, playboy magazine, or lottery tickets. All turned down. But at the gun show? No problem, private sale for cash, the little boy walks out clutching his very own long weapon and ammunition. Because the state protects him from the dangers of lottery tickets but not from gun possession.
"Texas has no laws regarding possession of any firearm regardless of age, without felony convictions; all existing restrictions in State law mirror Federal law. A person of any age, except certain Felons, can possess a firearm such as at a firing range. Texas and Federal law only regulate the ownership of all firearms to 18 years of age or older, and regulate the transfer of handguns to 21 years or older by FFL dealers. However, a private citizen may sell, gift, lease etc. a handgun to anyone over 18 who is not Felon. "
interesting, doschicos, but it does not answer what rocroftmom said.
Min age to PURCHASE a gun in Tx is 18. SO any child walking into a Tx gun show legally purchasing a semi-automatic IS patently false, as time2shine said.
@roycroftmom I can assure you that there is both a federal, and state law in Texas precluding any person under the age of 18 from purchasing a handgun. I agree that long guns federally can be personally transferred technically at any age but most states regulate those transactions regardless, which Texas does.
Minors can POSSESS a firearm in Texas with express parental permission. The Texas penal code holds adults responsible, though, if a minor gains access to a “readily dischargeable firearm” and fires it. The penalties are even stiffer if a person is shot by the minor. Whether this law is applied is a different matter.
I do not know what the laws are in Texas regarding a minor transporting a firearm. Possessing and transporting are two very different things in most states.
The fact remains, in Texas it is against the law for ANYONE to sell a long gun to a person under the age of 18 without express consent from the parents of the minor in question.
Saying, “little boys walk out of gun shows with dangerous weapons all the time,” is a bit hyperbolic.
A large percentage of the guns used in crimes are procured through “straw purchases.”
A straw purchase is when someone legally able to pass a NICS background check represents themselves as the buyer of a firearm on an ATF Form 4473, at a gun store, while knowingly purchasing it for someone else.
The straw purchaser passes a NICS background check, takes possession of the firearm, then immediately transfers physical possession of that firearm illegally to someone else. Frequently that person is federally prohibited from owning a firearm.
There are also FFL’s(gun stores) that knowingly participate in straw purchases. Those dealers should be investigated and prosecuted.
This is what I am talking about. We are a ways away from being able to have a sane, fact based discussion about the issue and it’s root causes. It’s easier to yell at each other on TV.
“Younghoss: Greenwitch (post 69) may be on to something though. Perhaps the Federal gov’t could set up judges to hear cases of people that “might do something like this” and if after their due process, they are judged to be too dangerous, they could then be put on a federal no-gun list. Then anybody on that list would be breaking the law if they obtained a gun.”
Are you seriously suggesting we should detail people and question them based upon what they MIGHT do? What’s the basis? Do they have to already be in the criminal justice system? Are we going to invade their medical records to find out they are, and if some doctor thinks so? Or are we just going to turn in other people who say things we don’t like (there are a lot of irrational people out there who think disagreement means “that guy will commit crime” and that might be a full time job for law enforcement).
“Cardinal Fang: 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 (SIC) intent.”
No, but guy who has intent to hurt others at the Waffle House could use a car and ram into the front of the building. He could bring in a knife and get quite a few that way, even if not as many. He could create some chemical weapon with a little bit of knowledge. He could somehow gain access to the food and sicken people.
The intent can be carried out, if it exists. We have to get WHY this intent exists, and what is causing it in whom, and eradicate it.