The Tsarnaevs' unlicensed guns

[SMR 368]

So it seems that the Tsarnaevs didn't have licenses to own the guns that they had and used to kill one cop and seriously injure another. My question is, what does that mean for gun control?

On the one hand you can argue that we need tighter laws to make sure that people don't get weapons they don't have a license for. If he could have gotten a gun legally, which he likely could have, why didn't he? Moreover, the bomb was made using gunpowder. If access to gunpowder was restricted, maybe the bomb would have been harder to make.

On the other hand, if they were already breaking the law, another law wouldn't likely dissuade them from breaking it, too. And considering that the FBI had looked deeper into the older brother and hadn't found cause for concern, it seems unlikely he would have failed a background check. He didn't have a record and wasn't mentally ill. Unless being a Muslim from a war-torn part of the world makes you fail a background check, he could have gotten a gun. Additionally, there's the larger issue that the main bombing wouldn't have been stopped by not giving Tamerlan a handgun.

What type of gun control measures, if any, would have likely worked here? What does this mean for gun control going forward?

[sara..... 371]

No amount of new gun control laws will ever protect us from those that are criminals........the only people it would effect is law abiding citizens.....and would soon turn most law abiding citizens that have guns legally into criminals just because we have guns...... criminals will always find the way to get guns ......its kind of like when there was a law forbidding abortions...people that wanted it found the way even if they had to do it criminally.....

just my opinion

sara

[Darnell 8,478]

My question is, what does that mean for gun control?

IMO, not a d@mn thing.

[Teddy B 17,252]

So it seems that the Tsarnaevs didn't have licenses to own the guns that they had and used to kill one cop and seriously injure another. My question is, what does that mean for gun control?

On the one hand you can argue that we need tighter laws to make sure that people don't get weapons they don't have a license for. If he could have gotten a gun legally, which he likely could have, why didn't he? Moreover, the bomb was made using gunpowder. If access to gunpowder was restricted, maybe the bomb would have been harder to make.

On the other hand, if they were already breaking the law, another law wouldn't likely dissuade them from breaking it, too. And considering that the FBI had looked deeper into the older brother and hadn't found cause for concern, it seems unlikely he would have failed a background check. He didn't have a record and wasn't mentally ill. Unless being a Muslim from a war-torn part of the world makes you fail a background check, he could have gotten a gun. Additionally, there's the larger issue that the main bombing wouldn't have been stopped by not giving Tamerlan a handgun.

What type of gun control measures, if any, would have likely worked here? What does this mean for gun control going forward?

I believe the older brother was on an FBI watch list, he more than likely would not have been able to get a gun through legal channels.

Most bomb making materials are strictly regulated, which is why most mass murders go for the easy catch, a gun. Ever since McVeigh and the OK city bombings, the regulations on such materials have been made much tougher.

There are certain cases where no amount of laws or weapon control will stop the criminal, this is one of them. Most any weapons can be had by a person that wants them bad enough.

[bigdog 376]

My question is, what does that mean for gun control?

IMO, not a d@mn thing.

:thumbs:Guns don't shoot people, only bad guys and terrorists do. All the gun registration in the world will not stop violence.

I believe the older brother was on an FBI watch list, he more than likely would not have been able to get a gun through legal channels.

Most bomb making materials are strictly regulated, which is why most mass murders go for the easy catch, a gun. Ever since McVeigh and the OK city bombings, the regulations on such materials have been made much tougher.

There are certain cases where no amount of laws or weapon control will stop the criminal, this is one of them. Most any weapons can be had by a person that wants them bad enough.

:thumbs:

[GandD 5,966]

There are certain cases where no amount of laws or weapon control will stop the criminal, this is one of them. Most any weapons can be had by a person that wants them bad enough.

Unless it doesn't exist.

Relax gun guys, I'm not for getting rid of all guns. BUT, the only way to lessen gun violence is to lessen guns. We can decrease the amount of guns without ending all personal freedoms or becoming Communist russia.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Unless it doesn't exist.

Relax gun guys, I'm not for getting rid of all guns. BUT, the only way to lessen gun violence is to lessen guns. We can decrease the amount of guns without ending all personal freedoms or becoming Communist russia.

That is common sense, but the gun nutters want you to believe that it's a free for all out there and the Boogeyman sleeps under your bed.

[GandD 5,966]

:thumbs:Guns don't shoot people, only bad guys and terrorists do. All the gun registration in the world will not stop violence.

This is true. But, all the legislation in the world (staying in the bounds of our bill of rights) will not get rid of bad guys and terrorists. So now what are you going to do? Yeah we know, more guns.

[Harsh_77 718]

Unless it doesn't exist.

Relax gun guys, I'm not for getting rid of all guns. BUT, the only way to lessen gun violence is to lessen guns. We can decrease the amount of guns without ending all personal freedoms or becoming Communist russia.

This is not true, check out Chicago which had nation’s toughest gun law, until recently it was not even allowed to CCW in Chicago and yet it did manage to have highest gun fatality.

So less number does not mean less violence.

[Harsh_77 718]

Something that would had stopped the Boston bombing was is FBI was more alert about the leads they had received.

Immigration was more active as well, the brothers were in US as asylum seekers and yet after gaining citizenship older brother did travel to Russia.

If he was asylum seeker and feared for his life why was he returning back to his Russia?

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Unless it doesn't exist.

Relax gun guys, I'm not for getting rid of all guns. BUT, the only way to lessen gun violence is to lessen guns. We can decrease the amount of guns without ending all personal freedoms or becoming Communist russia.

It does not matter how often and how loudly you say "we don't want to get rid of all guns, we don't want to take YOURS" ... they will still think that's exactly what you're trying to do.

This is not true, check out Chicago which had nation’s toughest gun law, until recently it was not even allowed to CCW in Chicago and yet it did manage to have highest gun fatality.

So less number does not mean less violence.

Chicago has an insane amount of guns that were obtained illegally or brought in from other states where they're easier to obtain.

[GandD 5,966]

This is not true, check out Chicago which had nation’s toughest gun law, until recently it was not even allowed to CCW in Chicago and yet it did manage to have highest gun fatality.

So less number does not mean less violence.

Are there physically less guns in Chicago? Or just more laws that people can relatively easily circumvent.

Chicago has an insane amount of guns that were obtained illegally or brought in from other states where they're easier to obtain.

Yeah, that

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

We should also make tanks and anti-tank grenades readily available to everyone since bad guys are known to get their hands on tanks. It's a shame that we cannot defend ourselves properly from those bad guys.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Chicago has an insane amount of guns that were obtained illegally or brought in from other states where they're easier to obtain.

An insane amount of guns is never enough, they need more!!

[Penny Lane 8,159]

An insane amount of guns is never enough, they need more!!

With CCW now in Illinois, I'm sure they will get more! And that will surely bring the violence down. Or so I've heard.