Call out the NRA as a terrorist organization

Laws don't stop crime.

The killer is in custody.

If there weren't any laws against shooting people, we couldn't prosecute him. We'd have to let him go.

Laws don't stop crime and never have.

We have laws regarding murder, theft, rape, fraud, etc.

And yet, we still have murder, theft, rape, fraud, etc.

We pass new laws to address evolving problems, such as electronic crimes. Or things some folks WISH were crimes, like abortion.

But, laws don't stop crime.

Laws don't stop crime. It would be nice if they did, but that's not the law's function.

Laws give society legal recourse when its members engage in anti-social actions. If you didn't have law against murder, you couldn't do anything (legally) about it when murders happen.

The shooter did not legally possess the guns he used. This is true. But that doesn't mean laws don't work.

The question is: HOW did the shooter get those guns?

Somebody has to be legally responsible for those weapons. So how did the shooter get them?

If the shooter got his weapons from his father as rumored, then the FATHER should be legally responsible for failure to properly secure the guns. But that only works if there are ENFORCEABLE laws in place regarding storage and access in the home.

If that law doesn't exist, then it should.

Such a law would not prevent any responsible citizen from owning a gun. It doesn't infringe on 2nd Amendment rights. It simply requires that the gun owner be held LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE for his or her guns. If Adam Lanza's mother had properly secured her weapons, she'd be alive today, along with the children murdered at Sandy Hook. Adam Lanza was mentally ill. He COULD NOT BE LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE. She knew that. Her own irresponsibility cost 28 people their lives.

Laws don't prevent crime, not all of it anyway.

But they CAN reduce crime by modifying society's behavior over the long term. See Drunk Driving laws. Obviously, those laws don't stop drunk driving, but they DID drastically reduce it by changing irresponsible behavior.

Now, Making driving while intoxicated illegal does NOT keep anyone from drinking if they want to. But we prosecute irresponsible intoxication. We hold those who enable it responsible, even bartenders and liquor store owners. Those we catch violating the law GO TO JAIL.

And we are draconian about enforcing these laws, we have campaigns about how draconian we are, we put up signs along the highways and we have cops go to schools and lecture kids about it, and as a result people have become significantly more responsible about their behavior when they otherwise wouldn't be.

If guns laws addressed specific irresponsibility, such as failure to secure your weapons, and we held those responsible to the same degree as drinking, and we promoted gun responsibility the same way we do responsible drinking, then you'd see a marked reduction in cases like this one.

Where'd the shooter get his guns? EXCELLENT question.

The answer isn't: Laws don't work.

The answer is a law that specifically addresses the problem identified by the question and holds those responsible to strict and mandatory account. Every time.

If we started holding guns owners responsible for their guns to a degree no more stringent than gun manufacturer guidelines and the NRA's own rules for safe gun handling, then you'd see gun owners start properly securing their guns. As they should.

I'm NOT talking about taking your guns away.

I'm a gun owner too. I'm sitting right now within three feet of two gun safes. MY weapons are secure when not on my person. Period. No exceptions. Ever. They are my guns. *I* am responsible. No one else. Because I was trained that way.

Laws don't stop crime.

But then neither do GUNS.

Laws don't stop crime and never have.

But the right laws make crime far less likely by modifying irresponsible behavior and by giving society legal recourse to hold its members accountable for their actions.

We'll prosecute the shooter, sure enough.

But we SHOULD ALSO prosecute those who enabled him.

...others who the nra fronts for want bump stocks and silencers and no way tracking the transfer of possession nor an means of taking them away from the mentally ill nor domestic abusers

To acquire and carry a gun in Canada, you need to go through a mind-boggling [3] number of tests and procedures, the results of which are then vetted by police.

@Kingtut:

Sorry, but you're wrong about USA leading the pack in mass shootings.

https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

It FEELS like it because they're horrible events, and they garner huge media coverage. Macedonia sounds bad!

lack of religion they say is the problem

You want to talk gun control? How about gun owners controlling their guns?

Sandy hook would not have happened if Lanza's mother locked up her guns. In that case she paid for her stupidity with her life before the massacre of innocent children.

In the recent Texas murders the kid had his dad's guns.

Gun control begins at home.

but whats the incentive?

But why not secure the schools now? Not one good reason....

You are a moron.... I won't even address how much of a slobbering idiot you have to believe.... I pity the fool.