If Cruz's gun was illegal, would the crime or action have been less horrible?

You mean like if he couldn't get a semi automatic rifle? A single shot hunting rifle would have reduced the number of dead.
A kid buying any gun is the problem.
Why can anyone under twenty five buy a gun?
Insurance companies levies higher premiums on drivers under twenty five because they are a higher risk.
You can't be president if you're under age thirty five because we are a nation they believes for the most part that age brings wisdom and experience.
So can't we apply that kind of thinking to fire arms?

I will never own a gun. But I don't have a problem if you want one. But we keep dangerous stuff away from our kids for a reason. I had a stupid cousin who shot himself in the foot.
Lucky it was only his foot. His father locked up the gun after that. Yeah... after.
We keep plastic bags away from babies. Plastic bags are not considered dangerous but in the hands of a baby it could be.
We don't let kids play with lighters. Lighters are not considered dangerous but in the hands of a kid could be.
We put childproof caps on medications because kids make mistakes or think it's candy.
We do all kinds of things to keep the young and inexperienced safe.
Why not a higher age limit for purchase of guns?
When I was eighteen the legal drinking age was eighteen. Then they raised it. Some kids got pissed but we all adapted to the higher age limit.
This is just one thing they could consider as improved gun laws.
You don't have a problem keeping guns away from kids do you?

a reply to: Jubei42

Then soldiers can hang themselves instead ince the pain of their trauma overhwlems them.

We should just band aid all the problems in life similarly. Gangs using bombs instead if guns sounds swell.

the kid was too young to buy himself a beer!!! I guess society believes that they are too young to handle it at that age. that doesn't mean that kids still don't manage to get ahold of beer and sometimes they also get behind a wheel drunk and end up killing people. but, the question is... do less kids get drunk and then drive and kill themselves and others because of the law?? if you answer it no, then I guess we don't have to have laws that restrict the age in which kids can legally drink, right?

and here you are using the same kind of logic here, only it's not a beer, it's a semi automatic rifle able to discharge and extreme amount of bullets in minute... only if society believes the kid isn't responsible enough to handle a beer, then how can he be thought of as responsible enough to handle that kind of firepower?

and by the way... society didn't think he would be responsible enough to buy a handgun either..... he wouldn't have been able to buy one of those legally. maybe he he had, he would have opted to use a handgun and there would have been less kids killed???

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

What do you mean, the act of him aquiring the gun illegally would have been horrible:

Lanza killed his own mother for the one he used.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

If Cruz's gun was illegal, would the crime or action have been less horrible?

If he had used a car to kill, would we hear the same clamor in the news about making certain cars illegal?

originally posted by: whismermill

originally posted by: Jubei42
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I agree, there are many issues regarding gun related death. But the common denominator is guns and their availability.

So you can try to solve all kinds of different complex social, cultural and personal issues. Or you can just get rid of the guns.
Hmmm

liberal gun states like New Hampshire have less homicides than more restrictive gun states as California. Your common denominator doesn't add up

New York, which is more restrictive than New Hampshire has less. Massachusetts, which is also more restrictive, has less as well.

California is 18th per capita in gun deaths. They also have more guns than any other state.

What’s the common theme? Who knows?

Your common

originally posted by: Jubei42
a reply to: DanDanDat

That's exactly what I'm saying; massively reduce the amount of guns available, or let the killing continue.

I am fully aware of the red flag that I'm waving here. But that's just what it is. Not about politics, not about 2nd amendment, not about law abiding gun owners, not about mental health issues. This is about statistics causing tens of thousands of innocent deaths a year.

So your answer to the annual 50,000 fatalities of innocents caused by the drivers of automobiles is to ban all automobiles?

The only reason I can see for someone wanting to seize my legally purchased, owned, and maintained guns is that they want to impse their will on me and they’re afraid I might successfully defend myself.

By the way, I’m pretty sure there is still gun crime in Australia...

When there are consequences for crimes, crimes will diminish. The bleeding heart liberals have pretty much stopped all forms of “punishment fits the crime.’ The Florida shooter should be well on his way to death not later than July 1st this year. Any bets it will end up being life without parole on the taxpayers dime because the desth penalty is inhumane? And then the left will scream about how it was the gun? Freaking liberals...

There's no way to know for sure, but it's unlikely it would've mattered much. At the ranges we're talking about, a high-caliber handgun would be just as deadly. There have been mass shootings where the perp used a handgun and killed just as many or more people.

The solution is to keep guns out of the hands of lunatics like this guy. Would an AR ban do that? No. He may have been able to get one anyway, and if he couldn't he would've just used a different gun.

originally posted by: face23785
There's no way to know for sure, but it's unlikely it would've mattered much. At the ranges we're talking about, a high-caliber handgun would be just as deadly. There have been mass shootings where the perp used a handgun and killed just as many or more people.

Look no further than Virginia Tech, where the perp used a 9mm handgun and a 22 pistol. How many of those floating around out in the public? 100 million?

And lets not forget what happened in the UK in 2010, where a guy with a double barrel 12 gauge and a bolt action 22 killed 12 people, plus himself.

I don't know what the solution is aside from better reporting of problem individuals into the system, but I'm certain that an AWB isn't going to make a damn bit of difference. The only ban that's going to work is going to be a near-complete ban on everything that also entails mass confiscation. That's never going to happen.

One of my friends shared this article on FB, and after reading some of the replies here I felt like it would be "good" to share.

www.nbcnews.com...

Sure, it was 5 people, but 5 people with knives killed 33 people and injured over 100 more. There were no guns involved, it was all done with knives. Just because people don't have a gun doesn't mean they won't do terrible things, and just because they don't have a gun doesn't mean they can't get high numbers.

The more people we have on this planet the greater chance of some of them being messed up, and the more messed up people you have, the greater chance they'll snap and do something bad. Making stricter laws and/or getting rid of guns in general will not fix this problem. It's not the tools doing the work, it's the person behind the tools. I know people are always wanting to blame something, find a reason and stop it, but sometimes people are just messed up. Nothing you do will "fix" them.

It's always amazed me that people expect such a shooter to follow whatever gun laws they propose.

He didn't follow the law when he decided to bring guns into a gun free zone.

He didn't follow the law when he committed multiple murders...

Yet, by some miracle is expected to obey those new gun laws....