My understanding is that the guns Lanza used were bought and stored legally. That still didn't stop this kid from getting them. And if we can't prevent criminals from getting guns, how would that mean that 'nice' people wouldn't be able to get them? That makes no sense. I can go down the street right now on a Sunday afternoon and get my hands on a handgun if I wanted to. I'm not a criminal.
Simply this: Passing more laws to make it harder for people to get guns would only make it harder for those who are law abiding to get them. It would not make it harder for criminals or the mentally disturbed to get them.
Also, Lanza killed his mother then (somehow, we don't know how just yet) stole her firearms. If she was in compliance with CT laws, she should have had those things locked up in a safe. Whether she did or did not, we don't know yet. One thing is certain - he did not buy any of the weapons he used, and he was rejected when he tried to buy one from a dealer.
This I agree with. Filling out a piece of paper and handing it to someone who, lets be honest...is wanting a sale is just going through the motions. Nothing more. It wont stop someone who hasn't committed a murder yet.
This statement alone indicates how woefully uninformed you are about the actual process. Here is the process for purchasing a firearm over the counter (Federal laws only).
1. You fill out the Form 4473 and present valid photo identification to the dealer.
2.
The dealer calls the Federal government National Instant Background Check call center and reads all of the information on the 4473 to the operator over the phone.
3. The operator tells the dealer go or no go and gives them an approval number to place on the 4473.
4. If there is a problem where the government needs more time to check or there is a system problem, the dealer is NOT allowed to just give you the firearm. The government will get back with the dealer within three days and tell them go or no go.
Whether the dealer wants to make the sale is completely irrelevant with regards to whether the person gets the weapon. Legal approval is NOT up to him. It is up to the Federal government. In states where applicable, it's also up to the state police. He also cannot 'slip it to you under the table' because dealers are audited regularly and the Feds have no sense of humor about any paperwork irregularities. People get sent to pound-me-in-the-ass Federal prison for decades because someone forgot to check a box on the 4473 and the dealer accidentally overlooked it. (Even though the person was cleared by the Feds and was actually fully legal to purchase it.)
Buy from a dealer at a gun show? Still have to present ID and fill out the 4473. Still have to undergo the background check. Still don't get to take the weapon home if they say 'no' or 'delayed' or 'it's not working'.
I am in no way saying the looks of the guns made them do it. I AM saying that it's the perception of it being 'as badass looking/scary/evil looking' that attracts some of these nutjobs to them.
Did you even read what I typed? Most of these nutcases
aren't using the badass/scary/evil looking rifles.
These were the two weapons Cho used at Virginia Tech, a 9mm Glock 19 pistol and a .22 caliber Walther P22 target/training pistol. He did not use a rifle at all.
The same type of Glock pistol was used by Loughner in the Tuscon shooting involving Rep. Giffords.
"But, but, Columbine's killers used assault rifles, right?" Nope. Per Wikipedia:
Using instructions acquired upon the Internet, Harris and Klebold constructed a total of 99 improvised explosive devices of various designs and sizes. They sawed the barrels and butts off their shotguns to make them easier to conceal. They committed numerous felony violations of state and federal law, including the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968, before they began the massacre.
On April 20, Harris was equipped with a 12-gauge Savage-Springfield 67H pump-action shotgun, (which he discharged a total of 25 times) and a Hi-Point 995 Carbine 9 mm carbine with thirteen 10-round magazines, which he fired a total of 96 times.
Klebold was equipped with a 9 mm Intratec TEC-9 semi-automatic handgun with one 52-, one 32-, and one 28-round magazine and a 12-gauge Stevens 311D double-barreled sawed-off shotgun. Klebold primarily fired the TEC-9 handgun, for a total of 55 times.
These are the actual weapons recovered from the bodies of the Columbine killers (courtesy of acolumbinesite.com):
Hi-Point model 995 carbine - not an 'assault rifle'.
Sawed-off pump-action Savage-Springfield 67H shotgun - not an 'assault rifle'.
TEC-DC9 9-mm semi-automatic handgun - not an 'assault rifle'.
Double-barrel Savage 311-D sawed-off shotgun - still not an 'assault rifle'.
And, of course, a shitload of bombs including a car bomb that Dylan set the timer on incorrectly and a fuel-air bomb in the cafeteria. The list:
48 -- Carbon Dioxide bombs
27 -- Pipe bombs
11 -- 1.5 gallon propane bombs
7 -- gas or napalm bombs
2 -- 20 pound propane bombs
Not a single scary-looking assault rifle in the bunch. The carbine was essentially a pistol with a 16" barrel and a shoulder stock attached.
One L. Goh shot up Oikos University in April 2012. His weapon was a .45 caliber handgun (type unspecified by police, and as he has yet to come to trial, we don't know what it was.) No 'assault rifle'.
The
Chardon High School shooter used a Ruger MkIII .22 caliber target handgun. No assault rifle.
The
Millard South High School shooter used an unspecified Glock .40 caliber handgun (which would be similar in appearance to the Glock 19 pictured above). No assault rifle.
The
2010 University of Alabama at Huntsville shooter used an unspecified 9mm handgun. No assault rifle.
And these are the weapons of the
2008 NIU/Illinois shooter:
(not actual weapons in pictures)
12 gauge Remington Sportsman 48 shotgun
9 mm Glock 19 semiautomatic pistol (pictures above)
9mm Kurz Sig Sauer P232 semiautomatic pistol
.380 Hi-Point CF380 semiautomatic pistol
The nut cases
don't use 'assault rifles' or 'assault weapons' in almost every case. Ones where they do are exceedingly rare exceptions. They usually use hunting weapons (the shotguns) or target weapons, or personal defense handguns due to price and complexity.
And while I'm asking...if changing the appearance of the gun does nothing to the function, then why do people make them look like that in the first place?
Changing the cosmetics like that does nothing to affect the mechanical function of the weapon - one round per trigger pull. It may make the weapon look more attractive to the owner, may suit it for a particular role (such as three-gun matches or marksmanship contests) better, or may make it easier to clean and maintain. For example, wood is a high maintenance material, composites aren't and composite stocks are more accurate as they are more dimensionally stable in different temperatures. Composite stocks can also be lighter and if you drop your hunting rifle in the river with composite stocks instead of wood, if you can't fish it out in the first 10 minutes it's not ruined. It may also allow the owner to have the weapon fit him better - I fit 'collapsible stocks' to my long guns because nobody makes an 'off the shelf' stock that will correctly fit me and I can adjust the 'collapsible stock' to fit properly.
As for why - why do people put body kits on cars? Why do they repaint their cars a different color? Why do they fit wings and ground effects? Why do people change out the seats in their cars for different ones? Why do people tint their windows or fit a stereo system? For that matter, why did you repaint your fender? It's because they need to or even simply because they just want to.
Again, I'm past suggesting that we get rid of the excess guns in America because the politicians would never have the balls to ever suggest that. So, it's just not going to happen, ever. I get that.
Um, again, I don't think you're paying attention. Senator Diane Feinstein, among others, is on record as telling us gun owners that we need to surrender ALL of our weapons.
I am wondering why it's not mandated that all guns use either a biometric gun safe, and/or put a biometric trigger lock on all guns? I haven't really spent a lot of time researching them, but from what I understand...if someone breaks into my house and steals my gun, it's useless to them. Nor could it be used to kill me. (I hope)
Or, if while I'm away, one of my kids get his hands on one, he wouldn't be able to accidentally kill one of his friends Or if one of my teen-aged boys has a tiff with his girlfriend, he can't come home and while in a hormone induced pity party, take his own life.
While not perfect, wouldn't this greatly decrease these tragedies?
One minor problem, and entirely aside from the question of "what if someone else needs to legitimately use your weapon": They don't work. The battering that occurs when a firearm cycles kills many electronics, like most fingerprint readers, in short order. Electronics that are hardened enough to deal with it are expensive - and even then, they still don't work as advertised. Some fail and render the weapon unusable, which would be undesirable in a defense situation. Some fail and render the weapon usable by anyone who happens along, also not a good idea if you are trusting that for security.
What you are thinking of is basically the Smart Gun projects. And nobody has gotten any of the projects to the point where it's reliable enough for police to accept them. There are millions of dollars that have been thrown at this project, with the promise of millions more in contracts (because a biometric-locked weapon would be a boon to police so they don't get shot with their own weapons in a struggle) - but none are reliable enough for the police to use. The closest thing was the Mag-Na-Trigger, and that can be defeated by a refrigerator magnet. More info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Gun
Like most gadgets you see in James Bond movies, it sounds really cool until you find out it doesn't actually work in the real world.