Gun Control III

quote:

---

Waffle House Shooter’s Mom Claims Lack Of School Prayer Causes Mass Shootings

---

That is the second stupidest thing I have read on EvC today.

Sure. Now is that a relevant observation for this particular argument? We know where this particular shooter lives and the laws he lives under. Why not assume that I am referring to that? It is not the case here. It is also the case that I said "generally" not responsible. What is your point here?

The relevant question is not when your dad got to drive, but when he got his car back. You did not report that, but I am going to suggest that it was less than a week after he was arrested. That would be a typical time frame.And the fact that your dad got his car back despite not being allowed to drive is not a red herring. It is exactly the point.

Right. I don't have to honor your requests. Wrong. You don't need a license to own a rifle. All adults have a right to own a rifle absent some legal disqualification. Your premise is just wrong. Surely you have heard of the 2nd amendment?There are licenses for carrying a firearm, and for concealed carry. There are even licenses required for purchasing. But generally speaking no license is required to own a rifle. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That is obviously irrelevant here. My comment that generally speaking, no license is required to own a gun is correct. Even in Illinois, the police have to give you the FOID unless there is a legal prohibition on you owning a firearm. Apparently not. The police are not the folks who get to decide whether you can own a gun. They can disarm you, but they don't get to decide whether you can own a gun. A court can, and of course, the police can enforce a law passed by the legislature. But they cannot otherwise deprive citizens of the right to own a gun.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Didn't all of the shooting happen in Tennesse?

I think your summary is quite accurate. But I'd take it a bit further. If dad handed his son the guns in Illinois knowing that his son was leaving the state, at best the dad is technically guilty of a crime. But it is not illegal for the son to have those guns in most places other than Illinois.Bottom line. The law won't hold Dad responsible for what a 29-year old adult does in Tennessee with a gun, where his possession was completely legal. I'd also point out that Illinois law does not even apply to non-residents who are within the state. If the son's intent was to permanently move out of Illinois, at least arguably, the dad could give him his guns back without violating the law. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

"The people who operate the law" are subject to oversight. I will never say that there cannot be a prosecution, and I certainly cannot say that no jury would convict. But any conviction that resulted would be on very flimsy grounds. In my opinion, such a conviction would be against the weight of the law.

"The people who operate the law" are subject to oversight. I will never say that there cannot be a prosecution, and I certainly cannot say that no jury would convict. But any conviction that holds Dad responsible for the murders that resulted would be on very flimsy grounds. In my opinion, such a conviction would be against the weight of the law.

This is just silly. What was needed was a good toddler with a gun.