Kansas mass-shooter acquired weapons illegally.

[TITAN308]

A 28-year-old woman was charged Friday with providing the firearms a gunman used to kill three people and wound several others in a shooting rampage in Kansas.

Sarah Hopkins, of Newton, Kan., was accused in federal court of knowingly transferring a firearm to a convicted felon, according to Fox4KC.

Federal law bars felons from possessing weapons. Prosecutors said Hopkins knew Ford was a felon.

URL = http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/02/27...l?intcmp=hpbt4

I would like ideas on what further laws could be created to stop this from occurring.

The only caveat is you cannot use the, "ban guns" angle. And go!

[Underverse]

But the gun itself was obtained legally.

Reduce access to guns, reduce incidents like this.

[Deleted]

Well, where'd this Sarah Hopkins get the gun? Did she buy it legally? Did she have to give a purpose for purchase or go through a background check?

Surely, she didn't just pull it out of a magical top hat and hand it to the shooter. Maybe he didn't purchase it legally, but she may have and seemingly without much risk of being called out for re-selling it to a dangerous person.

[TITAN308]

But the gun itself was obtained legally.

Reduce access to guns, reduce incidents like this.

*hits buzzer*

You failed to follow the one rule. You're out.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, where'd this Sarah Hopkins get the gun? Did she buy it legally? Did she have to give a purpose for purchase or go through a background check?

Surely, she didn't just pull it out of a magical top hat and hand it to the shooter. Maybe he didn't purchase it legally, but she may have and seemingly without much risk of being called out for re-selling it to a dangerous person.

They were purchased legally by her from a pawn shop using standard form 4473's that run a background check. She knowingly passed the weapons on to someone she knew was a prohibited person.

[lonely zergling]

Make it so that you require a legit reason to own a gun for example you are a hunter = you need a gun. No reason to have a gun as a 0815 citizen.

Reduce access to guns, reduce incidents like this.

[TITAN308]

Make it so that you require a legit reason to own a gun for example you are a hunter = you need a gun. No reason to have a gun as a 0815 citizen.

Are you saying a 105lb woman in a shitty neighborhood does not have a legitimate reason to own a gun?

[lonely zergling]

Are you saying a 105lb woman in a shitty neighborhood does not have a legitimate reason to own a gun?

There should be legal non lethal weapons for self defence for the normal people imho. Problem is you already are flooded with guns.. will be very hard to get all the guns off the streets.

[Underverse]

*hits buzzer*

You failed to follow the one rule. You're out.

I didn't say ban. I said reduce access. They're quite different.

People who want guns should be required to meet a couple of standards. First, they should be mentally stable and have no history of violence. Second, they should be required to undergo training every year - not because I don't think some people know how to use guns safely, but because this extra step increases the investment one is willing to make in order to own firearms. I mean, I have to do annual safety training for my work in order to pipet DNA. It's ludicrous that there are no safety requirements for owning and using a machine that is designed to kill as efficiently as possible.

Also, all guns should be licensed to an owner, and use of the firearms by another in a crime should be considered negligence. Unlicensed guns should carry additional penalties.

[TITAN308]

There should be legal non lethal weapons for self defence for the normal people imho. Problem is you already are flooded with guns.. will be very hard to get all the guns off the streets.

Like what, a rape whistle?

[Gsara]

Stiffer penalties for selling or giving a gun, legal or not, to a felon. She should be sitting in jail on a depraved indifference charge at least. Get corporate money out of politics because until then we can talk/argue/bash each other over guns and its not going to matter at all.

[TITAN308]

I didn't say ban. I said reduce access. They're quite different.

People who want guns should be required to meet a couple of standards. First, they should be mentally stable and have no history of violence. Second, they should be required to undergo training every year - not because I don't think some people know how to use guns safely, but because this extra step increases the investment one is willing to make in order to own firearms. I mean, I have to do annual safety training for my work in order to pipet DNA. It's ludicrous that there are no safety requirements for owning and using a machine that is designed to kill as efficiently as possible.

Also, all guns should be licensed to an owner, and use of the firearms by another in a crime should be considered negligence.

Who pays for this training and mental checks if the person in question is poor already?

You cannot claim its not a ban on guns if you produce what is essentially a defacto-ban for people with not a lot of spare money.

Also, if a car is stolen then used to run someone over should the owner be charged with negligence? (Hint: There is a reason why we don't hold people liable when something is stolen)

- - - Updated - - -

Stiffer penalties for selling or giving a gun, legal or not, to a felon. She should be sitting in jail on a depraved indifference charge at least. Get corporate money out of politics because until then we can talk/argue/bash each other over guns and its not going to matter at all.

She is facing a 10 year felony charge (at minimum with no other charges) and is in jail awaiting trial currently.

[Gsara]

Who pays for this training and mental checks if the person in question is poor already?

- - - Updated - - -



She is facing a 10 year felony charge (at minimum currently) and is in jail awaiting trial currently.

At least she is charged with something, she should be held liable for the murders, and charged accordingly, as much as the guy that did them imo.

And nobody should pay for anything for anyone, if you cant afford the fee's then you dont get to buy a gun.

[lonely zergling]

Like what, a rape whistle?

Pepper spray, gas guns and tasers.

Somehow it works in germany... we don't have daily [mass] shootings here. And people defend themselfs just fine with gas guns/pepper spray. I wonder why. Maybe it has something to do with the requirements for owning a real gun here?

[Underverse]

Who pays for this training and mental checks if the person in question is poor already?

You cannot claim its not a ban on guns if you produce what is essentially a defacto-ban for people with not a lot of spare money.

Many people own cars, and can afford to get a license. Guns are orders of magnitude cheaper.

Secondly, most crimes with firearms are committed by people who don't have a lot of money, often because they don't have a lot of money. Making it easy for this population to arm themselves doesn't solve problems; it makes them worse. Instead of more guns, I would promote aid programs for residents of poor areas.

[TITAN308]

At least she is charged with something, she should be held liable for the murders, and charged accordingly, as much as the guy that did them imo.

I suspect once it is all said and done the current charges won't be the only ones. Like most laws, by providing material items to the person who committed murder you to can be charged as if you were the murderer.

Like in a bank robbery if someone is murdered, the get-a-way driver will be charged with murder as well.

- - - Updated - - -

Pepper spray, gas guns and tasers.

Somehow it works in germany... we don't have daily [mass] shootings here. And people defend themselfs just fine with gas guns/pepper spray. I wonder why. Maybe it has something to do with the requirements for owning a real gun here?

I'll check back with you in about 10 years after this whole refugee thing pans out and see how your people feel about such items.

[Gorehowl]

well if poor people just bought more money then they wouldnt have to kill people.

checkmate close the thread, i won the universe.


/s

[TITAN308]

Many people own cars, and can afford to get a license. Guns are orders of magnitude cheaper.

Actually no, a lot of poor people do not have cars. The use public transportation. Also you don't have to pay yearly to have a drivers license.

Face it, your suggestion may work fine for those with money, but you are inadvertently creating a defacto-ban for those who arguably need guns the most.

You are being short-sighted and need to think beyond whatever perfectly shaped box you want to put gun owners in.

Secondly, most crimes with firearms are committed by people who don't have a lot of money, often because they don't have a lot of money. Making it easy for this population to arm themselves doesn't solve problems; it makes them worse. Instead of more guns, I would promote aid programs for residents of poor areas.

This is false. While we can't prove that more guns equals less crime what we do know for a fact (based on stats) is more guns does not equal more crime.

[Independent voter]

Did she know he was a felon?

[TITAN308]

Did she know he was a felon?

Not sure if serious...

[High Marshal Sigismund]

Canada had a mass stabbing recently. Yep, a mass stabbing. No one died. Canada has quite strict gun control policies in place, but you can own multiple guns if you qualify.

I personally do think gun control is needed in the states, to a degree, but the US has a huge crime problem. If we put gun control in place, it's just one symptom dealt with. The issue at large still is that crime is rampant on a national scale. You have a gang problem. A drug problem. A mental illness problem. All these contributing factors come together to intensify the effect.

Why aren't the Christians in the US doing anything about it? They are usually the first to oppose any sort of gun control, instead of working closely with the government to erase as much evil in the country as possible. That's what Jesus would have done, I guess.