I searched for previous threads and most are too old to bring back. In light of today's news I feel there is clear enough reason to make a national policy limiting the process of obtaining firearms. I don't want to ban guns from everyone or take away the 2nd Amendment, but there should be a stricter process for earning a permit to own or carry a gun.

12/14/2012 3:15:11 PM

Today's example is the type of gun crime that gun control laws won't change.

12/14/2012 3:18:34 PM

Two types of people commit these kinds of crimes; those with mental health issues and those who never learned constructive conflict resolution. Do more as a society to deal those two things, and these types of crimes will go down more than limiting the ability to buy a gun will.

12/14/2012 3:24:28 PM

^^while i definitely understand that logic, that's not necessarily true. if this kid didn't have easy access to multiple guns and unlimited ammunition, he may not have considered carrying out this killing, or he may have killed far fewer people. if there were laws to prevent people who are known to be crazy and dangerous (like the VaTech guy and the Theatre shooter) from easily obtaining multiple guns and unlimited ammunition, they may not consider the crime, or they may be much less "succesful". sure, he could still get it on the black market, but the fact that it's so easy to do it now may have lead to this. we'll never know.

i'm actually pro-gun, i just wish there was a way to keep crazy people from doing stuff like this.

^true

12/14/2012 3:25:15 PM

We male people take a class and then go through both a written and live test on the proper usage of a car before allowing them a licence to drive, so why shouldn't this be the same?

Quote :

"those with mental health issues and those who never learned constructive conflict resolution."

In most states, those people can purchase a gun as easily as those who don't fit into those categories.

[Edited on December 14, 2012 at 3:28 PM. Reason : -]

12/14/2012 3:26:56 PM

Quote :

"Today's example is the type of gun crime that gun control laws won't change."

And where would you think that a young middle class suburban kid is going to access guns if they were illegal? And who would sell him one knowing that if something like this happened they would likely be found and prosecuted?

Quote :

"Do more as a society to deal those two things, and these types of crimes will go down more than limiting the ability to buy a gun will."

If we could either tell the future or read minds, I would agree with you, but since we can't, identifying them is difficult and gun control would do a better job of addressing this problem.

12/14/2012 3:29:17 PM

Quote :

"And where would you think that a young middle class suburban kid is going to access guns if they were illegal?"

exactly. that asian kid at virginia tech isn't going to drive down to the ghetto and buy some guns on the black-market.

12/14/2012 3:30:51 PM

Quote :

"Today's example is the type of gun crime that gun control laws won't change."

People still drive drunk even though it is illegal to do it. I guess we shouldn't have laws about that either.

Just because a problem isn't completely solved doesn't mean it isn't at least helped.

12/14/2012 3:33:19 PM

Quote :

"And where would you think that a young middle class suburban kid is going to access guns if they were illegal?"

Quote :

"exactly. that asian kid at virginia tech isn't going to drive down to the ghetto and buy some guns on the black-market."

And who said that a deranged person interested in killing children has to use a gun?

Also, I was assuming (correctly, I think) that by "gun control" the OP was talking about making it more restrictive and not making them entirely illegal (which would require a constitutional amendment). Added gun control laws are unlikely to make it more difficult for a white kid from the suburbs with no record to buy a gun. That's the problem and why these things are hard to control from a gun control angle, its usually people with little or no criminal history

12/14/2012 3:35:35 PM

Quote :

"If we could either tell the future or read minds, I would agree with you, but since we can't, identifying them is difficult and gun control would do a better job of addressing this problem."

I agree that its incredibly hard, but only because we stigmatize it or pretend it's not there. Nobody want to believe their kid has a mental health problem when he's torturing neighborhood cats, and no adult wants to go admitting they hear voices and get fired from their job or foot the bill for the healthcare.

It doesn't help that we glorify gun violence as a form of conflict resolution in the media.

Gun control is still a way to help, but by then its kind of too late and doesn't do nearly as much help.

[Edited on December 14, 2012 at 3:37 PM. Reason : .]

12/14/2012 3:35:48 PM

Quote :

"Added gun control laws are unlikely to make it more difficult for a white kid from the suburbs with no record to buy a gun"

but they may prevent troubled and dangerous kids like the virginia tech shooter, the theatre shooter, and the congress woman shooter from buying guns and ammo.

12/14/2012 3:39:15 PM

Quote :

"People still drive drunk even though it is illegal to do it. I guess we shouldn't have laws about that either."

murdering people is already illegal, your analogy doesn't work like you think it does

alcohol is also restricted in ways similar to how guns are restricted, there area already laws similar to how there are already gun control laws and yet we still have drunk drivers the same way we have gun crimes.

your analogy is actually a great example of why we need to look at this from another angle (healthcare, social issues, societal issues, etc...) rather than just add more laws. There shouldn't be no laws about guns, but this type of tragedy won't change if you add more laws. Other type of gun crimes will probably be reduced, but not this kind.

12/14/2012 3:39:20 PM

Quote :

"but they may prevent troubled and dangerous kids like the virginia tech shooter"

explain a scenario where they may have prevented that plesae

12/14/2012 3:40:26 PM

Quote :

"Also, I was assuming (correctly, I think) that by "gun control" the OP was talking about making it more restrictive and not making them entirely illegal"

Correct. I will never own or carry a firearm but if other people want to the constitution protects their right. HOWEVER, just as person over 21 has a legal right to consume alcohol, I have a right to be protected from the stupid mistakes they might make with it. I feel the same way about guns.

If a person wants to own a firearm, they should have to pass the following:
*Background check (not just criminal records but also health history)
*Vision test
*Written test
*Shooting test
*Mental health test conducted by a licensed professional

I find it so extremely disturbing that in some places it is easier to get a gun than a driver's licence.

12/14/2012 3:42:24 PM

Apply those things to this tragedy; you really think they would have prevented this?

They would not have prevented this.

12/14/2012 3:45:02 PM

Quote :

"explain a scenario where they may have prevented that plesae"

I don't know exactly, I'm not pretending there's an easy answer, or it could have been prevented. But the kid (VaTech killer) had been diagnosed with severe anxiety disorder as a kid. Throughout his pre-college days, he received therapy and special support. At college, he was accused of stalking two people, and a judge declared him mentally ill and ordered him to attend treatment. There were a lot of accounts of people who knew of him who weren't surprised of his actions. I think i remember something about him being kicked out of classes for raging at the teacher. The dude obviously had a lot of issues.

[Edited on December 14, 2012 at 3:49 PM. Reason : ]

12/14/2012 3:46:49 PM

Quote :

"Apply those things to this tragedy; you really think they would have prevented this? They would not have prevented this."

i don't know anything about the shooter yet. why are you making that assumption? why are you assuming that he didn't have known mental health issues?

12/14/2012 3:48:01 PM

Okay, apply it to VT

^I'm not assuming he didn't have mental issues, I'm saying that there is basically 0% a quick mandated check that bdmazur is suggesting would catch it. No way they can't hold it together long enough to get an okay from a doctor. The only way what you are suggesting is even feasible (feasible, not effective) is if there is some kind of health and mental illness database. Uh... can you see why having a government health and mental illness database is a scary idea?

Doctors are already required by their code of ethics and the law to report someone who they think is dangerous. The fact that some of these shooters have already had recognized mental illness is an example of precisely why requiring that check is just feel-good security theater and wouldn't actually do anything to prevent this.



[Edited on December 14, 2012 at 3:58 PM. Reason : there are always going to be terrible sick people who want to watch the world burn]

12/14/2012 3:51:14 PM

I thought you were asking me too. As I mentioned, you or I don't know the first thing about the shooter in the most recent one, so I can't apply it.

12/14/2012 3:52:40 PM

Quote :

" a quick mandated check"

I'm not talking about quick. It takes between 6 and 18 months to get a driver's licence depending on your state. If you don't have that documentation saying you are legally able to drive a car, then you can't own a car.

Why should a person be able to walk into a gun store and without showing anything more than a photo ID be able to walk out with a weapon that same day?

12/14/2012 3:59:54 PM

okay, well then see my comment here:

Quote :

"The fact that some of these shooters have already had recognized mental illness is an example of precisely why requiring that check is just feel-good security theater and wouldn't actually do anything to prevent this. "

we need to

Quote :

"we need to look at this from another angle (healthcare, social issues, societal issues, etc...) rather than just add more laws. There shouldn't be no laws about guns, but this type of tragedy won't change if you add more laws."

[Edited on December 14, 2012 at 4:03 PM. Reason : .]

12/14/2012 4:02:34 PM

^^^^ Are you suggesting that nothing is done then?

[Edited on December 14, 2012 at 4:03 PM. Reason : .]

12/14/2012 4:03:06 PM

^, ^^

iirc, there are at least 20 states where gun sellers are not required to do ANY kind of background check

Some states are already ahead and have taken steps to provide a safer environment for their citizens. But a person can still buy a gun hassle-free in New Hampshire and shoot up a crowd in Massachusetts. There needs to be a national policy.

12/14/2012 4:05:43 PM

I don't think nothing should be done because i can recognize how this type of tragedy is different from other types of gun crimes

I'm saying that to stop this type of gun crime, there needs to be another approach. Even if you nationalize laws and have every state require a mental health check this type of gun crime will still happen as evident by the fact that:

Quote :

" some of these shooters have already had recognized mental illness is an example of precisely why requiring that check is just feel-good security theater and wouldn't actually do anything to prevent this"

what you are asking for is security theater

[Edited on December 14, 2012 at 4:08 PM. Reason : .]

12/14/2012 4:06:19 PM

Don't forget private gun sales and gun shows. Serious loopholes there.

^ agreed. Just wanted to make sure I understood your earlier comments.

[Edited on December 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM. Reason : .]

12/14/2012 4:07:10 PM

I'm confused as to why that would do NOTHING to possibly prevent this. If the shooter has a known mental condition, and a gun distributor does a background check and sees that, and then tells the person they won't sell them the gun...

How is that not better than "Oh you want this gun? Sure!" with no questions asked?

12/14/2012 4:16:29 PM

Show of hands: how many folks commenting on this thread have (i) bought a firearm, (ii) bought anything at a gun show, or (iii) obtained a concealed carry permit?

Lots of inaccurate foolishness ITT...

12/14/2012 4:20:07 PM

since this is TSB, why not point out the foolish inaccuracies, so we can have a discussion about them? instead of just claiming there are inaccuracies, but not saying what they are?



[Edited on December 14, 2012 at 4:26 PM. Reason : ]

12/14/2012 4:22:41 PM

Signed

12/14/2012 4:23:06 PM

^^ for example how comments were made about how easy it is to buy a gun, while in NC its technically illegal to sell/buy a hand gun privately without a permit.

but lets not pretend that 1. that law is always followed, and 2. the same kind of law is on the books in every state (say VA perhaps).

[Edited on December 14, 2012 at 4:47 PM. Reason : .]

12/14/2012 4:46:57 PM

what about a .223-caliber rifle?

12/14/2012 4:52:37 PM

semi-auto, full auto, or single shot/lever action/bolt action?

12/14/2012 4:54:34 PM

Quote :

"I'm confused as to why that would do NOTHING to possibly prevent this. If the shooter has a known mental condition, and a gun distributor does a background check and sees that"

because a background check wouldn't show it

12/14/2012 4:54:40 PM

^^^^my point is mainly about the inconsistencies between states. It's like when you cross the line into South Carolina to get your fireworks and no one stops you from bringing them back into NC.

[Edited on December 14, 2012 at 4:55 PM. Reason : -]

12/14/2012 4:55:39 PM

Quote :

"And who said that a deranged person interested in killing children has to use a gun?"

Comparing the Chinese guy who attacked children with a knife at a school and this guy who shoot kids at school clearly shows its a much more effective way to go.

12/14/2012 4:58:01 PM

Quote :

"because a background check wouldn't show it"

well maybe a background check should be done to see if the buyer has known mental conditions? wouldn't that make sense?

12/14/2012 5:00:43 PM

I don't get why gun control is the political button people press in these cases.

Wouldn't the way we handle mental health issues go MUCH farther to prevent things like this more than looking for ways to ban guns?

Certainly use sensible regulations, but I feel we can achieve far more by looking at social policies and other factors.

12/14/2012 5:02:47 PM

^It needs to happen on both fronts

12/14/2012 5:04:19 PM

http://www.ncrpa.org/ncgunfaq.htm

Quote :

"Q: I have just moved to NC from another State. Do I have to register my guns with the Sheriff or the NC State Government? A: There is no NC state law that requires you to register your firearms, or notify any public official. One county in NC requires its residents to register handguns - Durham County. This power was granted to Durham County by the State Legislature. No other counties or localities are permitted to require registration. With the sole exception of Durham County, if you are a law-abiding citizen who lives in North Carolina you are entitled to possess the firearms you currently own without any hassle or red tape. Some county sheriffs, inundated with inquiries from people who move to NC from more restrictive areas where registration or ownership permits are required by law, have instituted voluntary notification procedures. In other words, if you have a burning desire to tell a public official about your private possessions, in some counties they will take your information and store it in a computer database. NCRPA recommends that you refrain from doing this - it's none of their business. Q: I have just moved to NC from another State, and I brought my gun(s) with me. Do I need to get an ownership permit? A: No permit or other legal document is necessary to legally possess a rifle, shotgun or handgun in North Carolina as long as the firearm is not capable of fully automatic fire. In other words, as long as the firearm is not capable of machine-gun-type fire (multiple bullets fired each time you pull the trigger = machine gun, vs. one bullet fired each time you pull the trigger = non-machine gun), it is legal in NC if you are not a convicted felon. If you ARE a convicted felon, per Federal law you may not possess a firearm of any kind. If any of the firearms are capable of fully automatic fire, it is illegal to own and penalties are severe. Q: Is it legal for a private citizen to own a machine gun in North Carolina? A: Per the North Carolina Attorney General's interpretation of relevant State law, the answer is clearly and unequivocally NO. Q: What are the relevant laws regarding Assault Rifles in North Carolina? A: Assault rifles (the real ones) are select-fire battle rifles available only to military and law enforcement. "Select-fire" means that they can be switched between semi-automatic mode (one shot per trigger pull) and full-automatic (machine gun) or "burst" mode (multiple shots per trigger pull). They are considered to be machine guns by law and are thus illegal for private citizens to own in NC. Is that the type of rifle to which you are referring? Or do you mean the non-select-fire cosmetic look-alikes, the so-called "assault weapons?" If so, we were fortunate enough to be able to make the NC legislature understand that so-called "assault weapons" are no different from any other non-select-fire gun, except in appearance. Because of their understanding, there are no state-specific laws governing "assault weapons." There are Federal laws, of course, and there are some local ordinances in Durham and Chapel Hill. The local ordinances were invalidated by a state-wide preemption law, but Durham and Chapel Hill still keep their ordinances on the books to "make a statement." Q: Isn't a semi-automatic gun a machine gun? I heard someone on TV call a semi-automatic gun a "spray-fire" gun. That sounds like a machine gun. A: "Semi-automatic" means the gun uses the energy of a fired cartridge to load the next cartridge. A better term for semi-automatic is "autoloader" or self-loader." An autoloader will fire only one bullet each time the trigger is pulled. When the bullet is fired the mechanism will then automatically load the next cartridge, but will not fire it until the trigger is pulled again. A machine gun (full-automatic) also automatically loads the next cartridge when one is fired; the difference is that a machine gun will continue to automatically fire bullets as long as the trigger is held in a pulled position. "Spray-fire" is not a technical term. It is a made-up phrase created by anti-gun organizations to frighten people who are ignorant of how guns work. The anti-gun organizations use this made up term to refer to semi-automatic firearms. It conjures up the image of a machine gun, which makes it easier for the anti-gun organizations to gain support for bans and restrictions on semi-automatic firearms. Q: What are the rules regarding transportation of firearms in a motor vehicle? A: Basic transportation requirements are: Rifles & Shotguns: transport unloaded. Locked in trunk, or locked in gun rack, or locked in a carrying case if you don't have a trunk. The best place for them is locked in the trunk or in a locked carrying case. Handguns: if you have a concealed handgun license, you can transport concealed. Otherwise, it is permissible to transport loaded in plain view (such as on the seat with nothing covering it), as long as you aren't in an area where possession or display is banned (and there are a LOT of those). If you don't want to deal with hassles or be caught inadvertently transporting in a prohibited area, unloaded and locked in the trunk is the safest. Q: I want to buy a handgun from a friend. Do I need to get any sort of permit to buy it? A: Yes. All handgun transfers in North Carolina, whether through a dealer or via private sale, or presented as a gift, require that the intended recipient of the handgun obtain a Pistol Purchase Permit from his/her local Sheriff. You must go to your Sheriff, apply for a Pistol Purchase Permit (one per handgun you wish to purchase), and pay a $5 fee. When you take possession of the handgun you must present the Permit to the seller, who is required to retain it forever. If a Pistol Purchase Permit is not presented, both the buyer and the seller can be convicted of a Class I Misdemeanor. As of 8/10/04 a new law was enacted, which permits someone with a valid North Carolina Concealed Handgun Permit to purchase a pistol without the need to obtain a Pistol Purchase Permit. Q: You said that I have to get a Pistol Purchase Permit to receive a handgun as a gift. My father wants to give me a handgun for my 21st birthday. Do I really have to get a permit for a birthday gift? A: Yes. NC law makes no distinction between purchases or gifts, and makes no distinction between strangers or relatives when it comes to transfer of a handgun. You must go through the legal process in order to obtain a handgun in North Carolina. There are no exceptions, except for Concealed Handgun Permit holders. Q: What is the deal with this Pistol Purchase Permit law? I moved from one NC county to another and found that the Sheriffs of each county have vastly different requirements for getting Permits. Isn't this covered by State law? A: The Pistol Purchase Permit law was passed in 1919, and is a classic piece of Jim Crow-era legislation (Jim Crow History). The recognition of civil rights for blacks and other minorities meant that the Constitution applied to minorities. This meant that blacks and other minorities could exercise their natural right to self-defense, with the full support of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution and Article I, Sec. 30 of the North Carolina Constitution. This did not sit well with the Ku Klux Klan (which for many years was headquartered in Raleigh, just down the street from the Legislature) and other racist groups and influential individuals. The racist members of the State Legislature knew they could not overtly prevent minorities from purchasing handguns for protection, so the seemingly innocent Pistol Purchase Permit law was passed. This law allowed local Sheriffs and government officials to discriminate with impunity at the local level. Even today, the Pistol Purchase Permit law is implemented in an arbitrary and capricious fashion by 100 individual County Sheriffs. Some Sheriffs do little more than collect the fees and hand out permits to the law-abiding, because more than that is not necessary. Others implement ridiculous, intrusive requirements that either discriminate on a wholesale basis or are selectively applied so that discrimination can be more personalized. With the advent of the National Instant Check System (NICS) there is no public safety reason why the Pistol Purchase Permit system needs to continue. The Jim Crow era is over, and the laws of that era need to be eliminated. Most people agree with that in principle, but for some reason when it comes to guns a significant number of people seem to think that discrimination and arbitrary requirements are a good thing. This is something NCRPA totally disagrees with. We have been trying for 10 years to get the Pistol Purchase Permit system completely eliminated. Apparently when it comes to gun control a lot of people think Jim Crow is still a good idea."

12/14/2012 5:04:50 PM

Some reports are saying that the guy was autistic. Time for a good old fashioned American-style crack down. "The War on Autism" has a nice ring to it.

12/14/2012 5:05:00 PM

Quote :

"What is the deal with this Pistol Purchase Permit law?"

12/14/2012 5:11:01 PM

Quote :

""because a background check wouldn't show it" well maybe a background check should be done to see if the buyer has known mental conditions? wouldn't that make sense? 12/14/2012 5:00:43 PM"

A background check of what to see if the buyer has known mental conditions.

You need to realize that you are saying we need a national health and mental health database! Please tell me you don't seriously want that.

[Edited on December 14, 2012 at 5:22 PM. Reason : With open records, goodbye HIPAA]

12/14/2012 5:21:36 PM

You can't kill anyone without guns, guys. It's all a big misunderstanding

12/14/2012 5:23:32 PM

^that's such a retarded argument

^^like i said, i don't know the answer, and i see your point. it just sucks that kids with known mental health problems can easily access multiple guns and large amount of ammunition.

12/14/2012 5:33:10 PM

Quote :

"A background check of what to see if the buyer has known mental conditions. You need to realize that you are saying we need a national health and mental health database! Please tell me you don't seriously want that. [Edited on December 14, 2012 at 5:22 PM. Reason : With open records, goodbye HIPAA]"

You could get around the database problem by requiring prospective gun purchasers to undergo a mental health evaluation, receive a certificate from the doctor and present that certificate to the gun seller. No certificate, no sale.

Obviously, there are problems with that scenario and I'm not advocating one way or another. Just wanted to point out that a mental health database wouldn't be necessary.

[Edited on December 14, 2012 at 5:37 PM. Reason : ]

12/14/2012 5:35:50 PM

By problem you mean the problem that it would be totally ineffective? The problem that a doctor isn't going to be able to catch anything but the most severe problems in a quick check? Or the problem that someone might simply use a gun that belongs to a healthy member of their family or household instead of buying it themselves? Etc...

It's security theater, it's the removal of rights so you can think you are safer without actually being safer.


(Not to mention that this would be challenged in court)

12/14/2012 5:42:36 PM

I don't know that it would be totally ineffective. If it were more than a "quick check", like several appointments and tests distributed over the course of, say, 90 days, for instance, I think people like Seung-Hui Cho and Jared Loughner would probably not have been able to purchase their weapons.

Yes, they may have still been able to illegally obtain guns, like any very determined person could. But the point would be to put as many roadblocks in the way and make it as difficult as possible for someone with a predilection for violence to gain access to tools that make their violent outburst much more deadly.

12/14/2012 5:52:29 PM

How much would these appointments and tests cost, and who would pay for them?

We don't make people pass tests for any of their other basic American rights.

12/14/2012 5:57:26 PM

Quote :

"How much would these appointments and tests cost, and who would pay for them?"

The cost would be one of the problems I referred to and I don't have an answer for that. Edit: But I'm leaning towards making the prospective buyer responsible for it. I mean, the Second Amendment only allows for the ownership of weapons. It doesn't say anything about financial ability to buy them.

Quote :

"We don't make people pass tests for any of their other basic American rights."

None of our other basic American rights have the potential to directly kill people.

[Edited on December 14, 2012 at 6:11 PM. Reason : ]

12/14/2012 6:06:03 PM

This is not a gun problem, this is a mental health problem. There is no gun control solution, at least not in terms of blanket restriction of gun ownership, and certainly not in terms of restricting certain types of guns.

Any solution would be from the mental health angle, but that's tricky too, even if you're willing to sacrifice privacy and patient rights. If doing so discourages people from seeking mental health treatment to begin with, then you potentially haven't really gained anything.

[Edited on December 14, 2012 at 6:08 PM. Reason : and I am about to buy the fuck out of some guns now--especially assault weapons. ]

12/14/2012 6:07:30 PM