...as we have watching the coverage this evening, that the son used his mother's name to buy guns online, via armslist.com or some such route. It does seem odd that a kindergarten teacher would have two modern handguns and an AR-15-style weapon...but like almost everyone else, I know nothing that would allow me to advance this as more than rank guessing.
hunting and I had no idea that websites such as that existed. I would have no problem making sales of guns possible only through licensed local dealers that can do the background check and verify the purchaser's identity. Same goes for selling guns. No more transferring/selling guns between individuals. If you want some unusual gun, the shop owner should be able to order it for you.
...linked below. Click on a state and you'll see listings. Click "Contact Seller" and all you do is provide you email; then it's just a matter of you and the seller getting together however you want.
to protect themselves.
a right given in the Bill of Rights just because a bunch of people that don't know the first damn thing about firearms think automatic weapons are legal AND criminals actually give two shits about gun laws".
The knee-jerk by the liberals and right wingers in response to this tragedy is ridiculous.
The suggestion that perhaps a legal framework that permits someone to buy and register guns in someone else's name simply by producing a copy of their drivers license might need some reform isn't a knee jerk reaction. The suggestion that it would limit your constitutional rights is closer to one.
be required to go through a licensed dealer and by result include a fee and recording because a gunman that used a LEGALLY purchased firearm killed a bunch of innocents?
So if my father wants to sell me his shotgun, we'd be breaking the law, but the guy that buys the .223 Bushmaster semi-auto from Walmart and goes on a shooting spree did so legally.
How many times have you or someone you know protected themselves with a legally owned gun? It is MUCH more likely that said weapon is stolen and used by a criminal. We need stricter gun laws. Automatic weapons should be outlawed. They ONLY belong on the battlefield. The U.S. is becoming the wild wild west.
We're way ahead of you.
Bushmaster .223-caliber semi-automatic assault-style rifle – which was legally registered to Nancy Lanza.....which her son obviously had easy access to.
Maybe learn the difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons before posting about gun control.
A semi-automatic rifle is distinguished from a fully automatic rifle or machine gun in that it can only fire once each time the trigger is pulled. In some contexts, the term "automatic rifle" may refer to a semi-automatic/self-loading rifle, not a fully automatic rifle
to intentionally mischaracterize something. One of them certainly appears to be in the wake of such shooting tragedies when facts become optional.
I doubt any soldier would go into harms way choosing a .223 Bushmaster over an M4. Why is that? Because the civilian .223 Bushmaster lacks critical capabilities (such as the ability to put down suppressing fire -- in case you are wondering, that is what an "automatic" weapon gets you).
A .223 Bushmaster is small caliber, semi-automatic rifle that is not that different from a .22 long rifle -- a ubiquitous rifle and round used for small game hunting. Any gun can be as dangerous as the person holding it wants to be.
and got results that included "semi-automatic" and concluded that they're the same thing?
In order to do that, you have to
1) Not understand how google works;
2) Not understand what "semi" means;
3) And be too lazy to think about 1) and 2) before posting.
paragraph if you can. I've probably forgotten more than you will ever know. Remember....don't take a knife to a gun fight. :>(
Please find your way to my tailgate in Miami. You'll figure out how.
If you want them to say "semi" before automatic for semantic purposes, that's fine. My guess is that gun control activists do not want others to have the ability to rapid fire deadly weapons, regardless of whether the trigger has to be pulled each time.
I don't believe it is some insidious plot to fool legislators into banning semi-automatic weapons, when they think they are only banning Uzis.
the consequences of that viewpoint. Can semi-automatic weapons fire rapidly? Absolutely -- as fast as you can pull a trigger. The main battle rifle of the United States military for nearly 30 years was a semi-automatic. But if you want to ban all weapons that can fire rounds rapidly, then you have to ban almost every weapon out there because pretty much every common firearm meets that criterion.
It's harder to get a goddamn passport.
Can people not read the directions or something?
And to answer you ltd question it's very hard for citizens of your state to obtain firearms and impossible for them to carry them to protect themselves. At least the law abiding ones.
The criminals, well you've seen that. Murder capital of the world Chicago, where every damn illegally armed criminal KNOWS the person the are robbing/raping/killing cannot legally carry a weapon.
Seems to be working well there.
...most of the murders in Chicago are not in the commission of robbery or rape, but gangbangers shooting at each other indiscriminately and hitting innocents along with intended targets. Concealed carry is coming to IL, and there will be three general types of owners: white suburbans who will almost never, ever chamber up other than at a practice range; hoodlums who will go on pretty much as usual; and older inner-city types who are getting fed up with the lawlessness in their neighborhoods, and are already widely armed. As a result there may be a certain increased number of self-defense shootings, like this one in Chicago, or this one in Kentucky (you have to like that guy's spirit--best night of sleep in a long time!).
Hopefully there will be no increase in sad incidents like this, this, this, or...well, there are more.
I am basically an agnostic/cynic/benign pessimist when it comes to gun regulation. There's nothing we can do that would make a short-term impact, and the most important thing, long term, is to reduce the propensity of young guys to shoot people as part of their gang activity. I do think that it's reasonable to have some regulations on gun sales and ownership; e.g., if a police officer loses their gun, there's hell to pay. If I lose one, and don't report it, who cares?
The best solution to stopping the public murders on the streets of Chicago is to take away the economic engine of the gangs (drug sales). It's a lot like the Prohibition era. These gangs are controlled by older guys who are reaping small fortunes; the gangs have mid-level managers, street soldiers, and the youngest guys who are runners and watchers (e.g., drugs are sold near the corner of Pulaski and Maypole on a Sunday night; young guys (like, 12 years old) are stationed a block in every direction with a cell phone. If they see a squad car or unmarked tac car, they call in their sighting, and the salesmen lay low. A well-developed gang is quite an organization, all designed to reap $$$. They are like the Mexican cartels, just writ a bit smaller. One current problem is that the bigger, more well-organized gangs have been breaking down in recent years into all sorts of factions; the turf lines are more fluid, and that is part of the reason for the increase in shootings.
...to obtain weapons, I think it's well worth the trade off.
I've seen people on this very board advocate purchase of guns from those sites to avoid government detection.
And ask yourself if that would be possible.
All you needed to do is sign a form saying you could legally own the gun and email a copy of your drivers license. That and $700 and the used glock with night plus 2 mags are all yours!
My guess is if you've committed to shooting people with guns, I doubt the crime of falsifying your identity is really going to deter you from buying said guns.
The other thing odd I found about the listing is that the gun is a used police gun. How can a gun formerly issued to a cop be this easily put out on the open market?
has a troubled son, around 10 now. He's been aggressive towards his younger sister and his mom on occasion. Says some pretty awful things, expresses some fairly violent imagery. Says sometimes that he wants to kill people. What kinds of toys does her -ex buy him? In addition to other things, guns. Toy ones, yes, but still guns. My point being, sometimes parents are blinded by what their kids are capable of and what demons haunt them. Wishful thinking maybe, "my kid isn't really all that bad"? Who knows what any of them were thinking, or if they were thinking at all.
"I'm a social media journalist ... follow me so I can DM.". It all fits right in with Bruno's "We are rotten" post.
send a reporter to cover this story? Crass vultures