"He got the gun legally" vs. "He got the gun illegally"...

I've been hearing this, including just now on MSNBC: "He got the gun legally. So the law isn't the problem." This was presented as a reason stronger gun control would not make sense as a result of this case.

I've also heard in other cases, "He got the gun illegally. So the law isn't the problem -- the problem is he broke the law." This was also presented as a rationale against stronger gun control. (Also, of course, every time somebody commits murder with a gun -- even a drive-by shooting or massacre like this -- we hear the murder was illegal so it's not about the gun.)

How can both of these be used to defend against gun control -- "He got it legally" and "He got it illegally?"

Said in another post:

Licensing. Registration. Insurance. Must have proof of all three before a purchase can be made.

edit 4 sp.

It is because the Second Amendment has been delivered unto us as by the Lord Himself: as Holy Writ inscribed in skyfire across the very heavens: Yea, ye shall all own guns, for you are as teenagers who play Video Games, and also are full of fear that Home Invaders shall plague you; and yea, woe unto you if thou art at a Liquor Store and find yourself in the middle of a Robbery, for it is Incumbent upon you to act as Judge, Jury and Executioner. Or if there is a School or Workplace Massacre, thou shalt be as Dirty Harry, and before calmly gunning down the assailant, thou shalt deliver unto him a Quip. And yea, all must carry Guns, be they Concealed or Unconcealed; though if they be Unconcealed, let them then be carried in an attractive Shoulder Holster, decorated with Beadwork. Quick Draw Capability is of the essence, and let there also be Exploding Bullets.

not to own a gun is just as sacred as mine is to. On the potential of being attacked and having both the training and tools necessary to defend myself gives me a better feeling then your position of being defenseless.

Sorry - I could say that all week and still not be convinced.

Where do YOUR rights end and mine begin? I'll have to test drive that line of yours on a friend whose son was killed due his neighbor's negligence to secure his guns.

not to be killed by by stupid carless gun owners.
You have the right to not be killed by negligent or drunk drivers.
You have the right to not be killed by a neglient act or unsafe condition at work.
You have the right to not be killed by tainted food.
Etc., Etc.

What are the chances that any of the above will get you. Care to guess which is more likely?

Your remark about your "right" to own a gun being sacred is offensive. And I don't care to engage in your juvenile guessing games. When you've seen firsthand the devastating effects of irresponsible gun ownership, such comparisons are meaningless.

I said again. I said your right to decide not to own a gun is as sacred as is mine to. I claimed no sacred right to own a gun. I have a legal right to do so and intend to try to keep it that way.

"He was a law abiding person and the laws were followed". Means to me that there is no fool-proof way of knowing who will use guns to commit heinous crimes in the future. A sane person today can go beserko tomorrow. Who knows what can make the mind snap? It can be a slow degradation or it can be shockingly fast. It can be organically home grown or artificial introduced (ie psychoactive drugs). This guy had warning signs....but it didn't stop him from legally acquiring these weapons. He could just as easily have purchased them years ago for legitimate concerns of self-defense and, at that time, it could have been a perfectly reasonable, mentally sound decision. Fact is, any rational pro-gunner, including every single one arguing in passionate defense of their guns on this board today, could be the next Mr. Cho tomorrow. I could be the next Mr. Cho, too. Except I don't own any guns, so acting on that urge might be far more difficult for me.

I'll go out on a limb here and say that the majority of gun-related multiple homicides are probably committed by people who have spent a lot of time handling guns, doing the training, the target shooting, and who identify quite closely with their guns and the culture that nurtures them. Perhaps there are statistics that will refute my hypothesis, but I'd be really surprised if that was the case.

"He was a sick man who was able to get his guns illegally." Means the present system is broken.

There's lots of money to be made selling guns. What's the downside for Roanoke Arms in selling the weapons that killed 33 people? None. Probably more gun sales with their notoriety.

.... that thinks you can pass laws to prevent insane people from killing others is used to justify a pointless, deadly war that is now going to go on who knows how long.

You can't fix the world with laws, just like you can't fix the world by starting wars.

But some people cannot handle the world as it is,and think they can mold it to their liking.

Pass all the laws you want. There will still be crazy people in the world, and guns will NEVER be any harder to get than pot, coke or smack.

Stay in your home with the curtains drawn, and hope the terrorist don't drop a bomb on your city.

Completely agree!