Skip to main content

View Diary: If you think Boston is a reason to abandon gun safety laws, you're a special kind of moron (118 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Guess they didn't hear the news that guns were (12+ / 0-)

    used to killed two innocent people in this incident? Or that guns allowed the youngest brother to escape, which put the personal safety of the region's citizens at incredible risk?

    I guess distraction is a pretty effective political tool in the US, but it's dishonest as hell.

    •  Yes, guns were used (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shamash, kyril, FrankRose

      But, would the proposed background checks have prevented Tamerlin and Dzokhar both from obtaining the guns?

      Or, were the specific guns that they used of a type that is banned under any legislation that has a snowball's chance to pass?

      Otherwise, it's irrelevant to a discussion of gun legislation.

      •  Tamerlin was already on an FBI watch list (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lilith, BachFan, kyril

        I don't know that we know what type of guns they were using, but the audio of the shootout with Watertown police, which Lawrence O'Donnell played on his show, was certainly consistent with high capacity magazines.

        Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

        by Loge on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 11:32:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Interesting to dive into (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kyril, FrankRose

          Dzokhar, as under 21, was banned from owning a gun.   So, how did he get it?  I hope that he will answer this question for investigators.   Did his brother buy it for him?    If he or his brother bought guns legally, then legislation might have had some kind of effect.  

          Tamerlin could legally have a gun.   I know the U.S. was warned about him.  I'd need more details to see if he was actually on a watch list, and if, under new legislation, he would have been prevented from purchasing a weapon.    We do know that Tamerlin was supposed to have a gun license, and didn't.  But, it didn't stop him from having the gun and using it.

          Given the lengths that they went to, I don't really believe new gun legislation would have stopped this tragedy, but maybe, they might have had less effective weapons when it came to the shootout.  Or, maybe they'd just bypass regulations, as we can see that they had already done, and the end would have been exactly the same.    Or, they would have relied even more on explosives.  

          There's no way of knowing how it would have played out.  With persons this dangerous, who had every intent of breaking the law, and had shown prior evidence of bypassing existing regulations, I'm skeptical that it would make much difference.

          •  It's not just lesiglation (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PsychoSavannah, JerryNA, kyril, 88kathy

            the anti-gun contingent has blocked the CDC from researching the effects of gun violence and made it harder for the ATF to enforce what laws we do have.

            Unfortunately, we are already in the position of shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted given the number of guns in the marketplace, but that's no reason not to try to regulate guns.   The argument would have to be that nobody would follow the new laws, not that they'd matter in each and every case.  Speaking of unknowing -- with greater enforcement, who knows if these two would have caught a gun rap and already gone to jail.  

            Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

            by Loge on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 12:09:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  you missed the point (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I think the comment was responding to those who are treating this as only involving the pressure cooker bombs and trying to make smartass comments about banning pressure cookers, while ignoring the fact that guns were involved in the whole ordeal as well.

        Although you also seem to be touching on a common argument from the NRA against any form of new gun control--to the effect of "such and such proposed regulation wouldn't have prevented such and such specific tragedy, therefore we shouldn't pass the proposed regulation or any others".
        The point is that some new laws could greatly reduce the likelihood of future tragedies, not eliminate them altogether.  
        At any rate, all future terrorists and murderers know where to go now to get their weapons, thanks to the NRA and gun fetishists-gun shows or online, or just ask a family member if they have one.  

        •  Bait and Switch (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kyril, FrankRose

          It feels like a bait and switch.

          I'm interested in how we can stop another Boston bombing.   It's a specific situation, and it provides a test for our "solution".  

          If you advocate gun legislation, and use the Boston bombing as an example, but the proposed solution doesn't meet the test to address the specifics of this incident, then that's a FAIL.

          It doesn't mean that your legislation isn't good, and doesn't accomplish many other things, but it's irrelevant to where the discussion started -- the Boston bombing.  I was in the market for a red car, and someone trying to sell me a blue truck and tell me how great it is.  

          That's when I move on to what I think IS the solution, which is how we respond to reported threats.   Tamerlin was reported as a threat.   If we had responded effectively, we could have stopped him.     I don't know what the effective response should have been, but that's where I think we need to focus our energy.   WHAT could we have done, once we knew Tamerlin was a threat, that could have effectively stopped him before he bombed Boston?

          I believe THAT is the real solution, the targeted solution, to the Boston bombing, and many other recent high profile tragedies.

      •  Wack a mole. That law on gun safety wouldn't (0+ / 0-)

        work here so WACK.

        guns are fun v. hey buddy, watch what you are doing -- which side are you on?

        by 88kathy on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 06:49:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site