Tougher Gun Control Laws: Are They Inevitable Now?

Following the tragic school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, CT, should we expect to see stricter laws regarding gun purchases in the United States?

The question reemerges after every mass shooting in America: are more stringent gun control laws necessary to prevent future shootings? 

It's a question that was posed after the in July. And as the national conversation continues to focus on the tragic school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, CT, it's a question being asked again.

So far, lawmakers in Missouri have been divided on how to respond. As KMOX reported on Thursday, Rep. Stacey Newman (D-Richmond Heights) is calling for the implementation of required background checks for people who buy firearms at gun shows.

Meanwhile, other Missouri lawmakers are supporting a bill that would allow school officials with concealed carry permits to bring firearms into their schools. That's an idea supported by the National Rifle Association and Tim Fitch, chief of the St. Louis County Police Department, though it was rejected by local school officials during a meeting of the Safe Schools Partnership Program on Thursday.

"At this point, I don’t suspect we will have this conversation again about arming school officials until the next school shooting,” said Fitch after the meeting. 

State Senator John Lamping (R-Ladue) believes any legislation on gun control will be handled by the federal government.

"Missouri the way it exists today is very, very gun friendly, and I don’t think that culture’s going to change unless the federal government makes a new determination," Lamping told Patch on Thursday.

President Barack Obama already has pledged to make gun control a "central issue" in his second term, reports the New York Times. 

The question remains: are more stringent gun control laws inevitable now? Or will our state and national lawmakers take a different approach? And how worthwhile is it to have the discussion, even if the country remains divided on how to handle laws regarding gun purchases? 

Tom Maher December 24, 2012 at 03:32 AM
Jh - they'd rather walk into a gun store instead of getting the plain brown-wrapped package containing their Pos-T-Vac. Simple as that. P.S. Love your "Jh" as a thumb in the eye of No Real Acumen "JH"!
Dr. Detroit December 24, 2012 at 06:22 AM
Dr. Detroit Jh to quote Jeff Foxworthy, ...if you feel the need for an AK-47...you might be a redneck or someone who really just likes to shoot! ...if you feel the need for a lawn mower are you playing lawn keeper? ...if you feel the need for a hammer and saw are you playing carpenter? ...if you feel the need for a set of wrenches are you playing auto mechanic? AK-47's and other assault weapons are fun to shoot, (don't knock it until you try it), simple as that. When used legally they can be used to hunt game putting meat on the table, although I rather go to the grocery store for meat and use the assault weapon for fun at the shooting range.
Dr. Detroit December 24, 2012 at 06:52 AM
Dr. Detroit Sonny Pondrom: Some decades ago, there was a place, I think it was either set aside for deer to roam free or it was on a military base where the deer where off limits to hunters. The deer population went unchecked and over time their food supply was exhausted...they literally starved to death. A full grown deer weighing less than 60 pounds is not a pretty sight to see. The conservation department sent hunters in to kill hundreds of deer, many were nothing but skin and bones, many were diseased ridden, very few could be used for meat. Over time the deer herd bounced back, a deer season was introduced and today the deer herd once again is healthy. I do agree on background checks on EVERY transfer, even when selling it from one individual to another individual. I've heard of some gun dealers taking guns out of their store, adding them to their own personal collection and then selling them off the books. EVERY firearm should be able to be traced from the manufacturer to the gun dealer to the original owner and so forth all the way to the last owner. Tighter gun laws? Let say that all firearms are banned, removed from the law abiding citizen as well as the criminal element and dumped into the ocean. If someone is determined to kill, that person is going to find a way to carry out his mission. Bombs, fire, what should we do ban gasoline, matches, where would it end? This isn't perfect world, nor will it ever be...
John December 24, 2012 at 01:08 PM
Thanks foxxydrummer. That's exactly what I meant.
Sonny Pondrom December 24, 2012 at 01:20 PM
Dr D: I agree with everything you say. Very well put. Except the part about banning guns. Guns are like cars. They are ecessary to live. But in the wrong hands (drunks for example) lives may be lost. We realize that we must have control. Each manufacture one gets a special number (VIN). You must be of age. You must practice. You must pass a test and get a license. You must renew the license periodically. You must get insurance to use in public. You must obey the police enforcement of local laws (Speed Kills / Don't drink and drive). You must pay tolls in certain areas. We have some crazy laws in order to put up with crazy people (like taking your shoes off in order to get into an airplane). So if guns are important to you, then you should follow the necessary rules. I wonder if Santa will give me a gun tomorrow.
Christine Stewart Mehigh December 24, 2012 at 01:38 PM
In most school shooting cases, the parents are the ones buying the guns, its the kids who are mentally unstable who are using them. The parents would pass any background check, but their kids are the ones gaining access. The only way to stop these mass murders from so easily happening is to stop access to guns that can instantly shoot multiple rounds. Lets also look at the fact that we are not funding the treatment of mental illness to a degree where these things aren't becoming a regular phenomenon. Background checks, which you've proposed, won't handle any of these issues.
Sonny Pondrom December 24, 2012 at 02:14 PM
Christine - Using the car-to-gun analogy, children can't use the car because car can be locked.
Scott Eguires December 24, 2012 at 03:17 PM
Sonny - Safes can be locked also.
Christine Stewart Mehigh December 24, 2012 at 03:40 PM
Locked or not, both can be unlocked and obviously have been. Hence, Newtown.
FedUpVet December 24, 2012 at 04:02 PM
I don't think most of everyone here realizes how many of these weapons are already out there. I've personally seen their mass sales at all the large gun shows (and small ones too) since Obama and the Democratic party took control of Congress in 2008. We're talking millions upon millions. Multiply that by about a dozen for high capacity magazines. Then add in billions of rounds of ammunition sold since 2008 (I've seen empty pallets stacked to the ceiling in large commercial buildings after these shows). Ruger's stock is up about 500% since 2008. Smith and Wesson's is up around 400%. These are actual figures you can check. Obama, Eric Holder and the Democratic Party have been the greatest gun salespeople in the history of the United States. They've just been waiting for the right tragedy to get the legislation they want. Banning future sales will do nothing, There's about 100 million out there in private citizen's hands already. Try taking them away and it will be a blood bath. All we can do is target the people who commit these horrible crimes and get control that way. And by the way, the Obama Administration has an ally in gun control: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/12/18/China-Demands-US-Citizens-Be-Disarmed?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BreitbartFeed+%28Breitbart+Feed%29 Maybe they'll call in our debt to try and force the issue and gain more dominance over us.
Sonny Pondrom December 24, 2012 at 04:24 PM
FedUpVet You see this problem correctly. I know of no one who really believes guns should be taken away. I believe it would be a big job to make gun licenses renewable, but doing so would help identify gun problems. Sorry, I did not use your link to "breitbart" because of his attitude towards compromising.
Scott Eguires December 24, 2012 at 08:36 PM
Christine - the comment was in reference to Sonny's comment above. Obviously both can be unlocked and unlocked. Thanks for backing my point.
flyoverland December 24, 2012 at 11:19 PM
Breitbart no longer has an attitude towards anything. He has been dead for about six months.
John Gun December 25, 2012 at 08:58 AM
Why is it that NO One is looking at the issue of proper care. You have a lady that wants her son committed along with his shrink. So there is a mental/behavior problem here.......NONE of this would have happened if Mom would have LOCKED HER GUNS UP properly.......OMG>
Dr. Detroit December 25, 2012 at 03:06 PM
Dr. Detroit I think everyone may be missing the point, a school can be ringed with federal troops, armed police on every floor, in every classroom, full trained and armed teachers, full swat teams escorting every school bus, heck, escorting every child to and from school...yet still the unsub will find a way to kill. What if one of the rational officers goes off the deep end and kills, who can say who is sane and who we should be looking at? The signs are not always there. Many are simply over looked and therefore go unnoticed. Even if guns are locked away in a gun vault, the child knows who has the key, probably knows where it's hidden and has opened the vault many times when the parents were away. For that matter, the child could simply kill his parents, take the key and open the vault and kill. If a person wants to kill, someone will die. No one is ever fully safe, nor will they ever be. Live life to it's fullest...it has an expiration date!
ReverePaul December 25, 2012 at 11:38 PM
I guess you would defend this guy's right to own a gun. http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-firefighter-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
Mr. Completely December 26, 2012 at 12:09 AM
ReverePaul- William Spengler didn't have the "right" to own a gun. He was a convicted felon. So his firearms were obtaioned illegally and he then committed illegal murder. What do his crimes have to do with another persons right to lawfully own firearms?
ReverePaul December 26, 2012 at 05:43 AM
I don't know, why don't you ask the firemen's parents what his crimes have to do with how easy it is for people to attain guns, legally or illegally.
Dr. Detroit December 26, 2012 at 08:06 AM
Dr. Detroit ReverePaul, I'd estimate that there is any where from a trillion to several trillion firearms in this country alone. Most of them are owned by mentally sane individuals that have purchased them legally from a licensed gun dealer, then there are those that have been handed down from father to son again and again for generations, some have been brought back from war, then there is the criminal element, some have actually purchased them legally before they turned to crime, others through loopholes in the law, others behind closed doors, in alley ways, under another's name, by a friend, still others from a stranger, etc.. There are millions of guns ready to be sold to "anyone" who has the money to pay for one by both criminals and even licensed gun dealers who put money above everyone else. Then there's those who simple will steal one from where ever they can. Getting an illegally owned firearm isn't all that difficult to do. Getting one by legal methods, well that depends on where you live and the gun laws in your state.
Al Mount December 26, 2012 at 04:41 PM
Jh... you are just another uninformed liberal, as a Vietnam Vet I can attest to the fact that the caliber .223 was intended to be a varmit/small game round not a man killer. Hence the reason the Marines fought so hard to keep their M-14s.
ReverePaul December 26, 2012 at 05:23 PM
Al Mount you are just another ignorant conservative. Have you noticed that in every rampage this year (Oregon Mall, Aurora Movie Theater, Minnesota Temple, Sandy Hook) the same type of rifle has been used. Looks like a man killer to me.
Tom Maher December 26, 2012 at 08:44 PM
Al Mount - you are just another uninformed conservative. As to the M14 v the M16 - as if the Marines always knew what was best... And I've used both; were I in a European battle, I would surely have chosen the M14 - but jungles and more recent warfare called for a different rifle.
Sonny Pondrom December 27, 2012 at 04:05 PM
I have heard a St. Louis expert say the TOP two priorities required are briefly: (1) More police patrols in high crime areas. (2) Make the access to guns that kill many people at one time hard to obtain.
Dr. Detroit February 02, 2013 at 07:35 PM
Feb. 2, 2013 White House Release shows Obama shooting a shotgun with smoke coming out of the muzzle as well as the top of of the upper barrel. Obama says he shoots clays at Camp David. I never heard of a shotgun with a compensator. What about the lower barrel, does it blow downwards? Wouldn't that raise the shotgun upwards? The article calls the shotgun a RIFLE. It actually goes into some detail about Obama's index finger being on the trigger and the "rifle" being cocked in his shoulder. If you take a close look at the person doing the shooting, hoping not to sound racist and I apologize if I offend anyone, isn't the person doing the shooting a bit white to be Obama? RE: The Photo - Who shoots clays when it's that dark without the use of lights. Obama says he shoots clays as though he's on the side of us that support the 2nd Amendment and appreciates firearms but does he really shoot firearms or is this just another one of his ploys to gain interest of those yet undecided about his over-all aim in dealing with the 2nd Amendment and firearms in general!
Tom Maher February 02, 2013 at 08:24 PM
Oh brave "Dr. Detroit," thee of anonymity... Your tinfoil toque is slippin' - your No Real Acumen buds will take you for a whippin'.
RDBet February 02, 2013 at 10:34 PM
Fixed it to haiku: O Doctor Detroit thee of anonymity A dumbass you are
Rich Pope February 02, 2013 at 11:51 PM
It only takes me two seconds to relaod a handgun with a new magazine. Limiting the magazine capacitywon't stop mass shootings.
Tom Maher February 03, 2013 at 04:22 AM
Then we must just eliminate magazines and clips and go back to what the REAL intent of the 2nd Amendment was - single-shot weapons. After all, we are not better than the founders of the country, right? I'm CERTAIN you would agree with that, right? You ARE comfortable with using the tools of the forebears, right? I thought so...
mike k February 03, 2013 at 05:22 AM
right turn in all the guns and how are we going to defend this country when Obama attempts to become dictator??
Tom Maher February 03, 2013 at 09:19 AM
"mike k" - send me your address; there was a double coupon in the weekend P-D for double-strength Reynolds Wrap...


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something