General

@fradddd: yes screw the laws they don't do anything right

@wanton I agree, we need anarchy

yes wat is the point of gun laws wat is the point of laws against murder wat is the point of laws against stealing i mean one time i was in a convenience store and this dude just walked in, stole a bag of chips casually and walked off what is the point of even having laws when people break them

In America tough gun laws result in more shootings, not less.

The shooters are nowhere near as tough as they claim, why do you think they go to movie theaters, schools, and lastly a nightclub in a city with harsh gun laws?

You don't hear about these things happening in Texas because many guns would be pointed at the would be shooters and they would get put down quick.

The FBI needs to do their job and suspected terrorists shouldn't be able to get guns at a gun shop, anything harsher is only gonna be bad for the law abiding citizens (which so vastly outnumber the bad guys)

@sammmmmich: P comprehensive overview of a good defense of gun rights. I think it's really important to also acknowledge that it will be bureaucrats and politicians who ultimately decide who will be armed and who isn't. There are some politicians out there that don't think that the Bundy ranchers were terrorists but that Black Lives Matter protesters are. Seems pretty arbitrary that if they got to implement these regulations, something as widespread and uncentralized as BLM would be blacklisted whereas a group with a more coherent structure and leadership would be exempt.

There's also the fact that people on terrors lists can be placed there arbitrarily as well and have next to no means to appeal this. Mass hysteria could end up disenfranchising someone innocent and give them no grounds to defend themselves at all. As a whole, we can't say that any kind of regulation would do what we intend to, which is why we should be especially suspicious of bills passed right on the aftermath of a tragedy. They are not as comprehensive and can easily allow sneaky ways of targeting certain groups, given how "terrorism" is already a vague enough word.

And as Sammmmich noted, if a security guard isn't going to be armed, then who is? Doesn't seem like gun regulations would have done anything meaningful here unless we want anyone that happens to fall on the FBI's radar to immediately be ineligible for a constitutional right. This seems very worrying imo.

@ecarina: Yes, people use assault rifles for recreational purposes, there are thousands, possibly millions of videos on the internet people using assault rifles for recreational purposes.

I do not exactly know how police handle shootings to determine who the criminal is, just know that their knowledge of the shooter is limited to the information given by the caller's point of view which varies from person to person.

I do not know much about how the media chooses what story to report, so I assume they only report the stories that interests most people which are usually ones that involve a lot of conflict which would earn the most money for the media.

I don't think you fully understood my analogy. People don't buy the things to prevent death from happening and want the things that causes death to show up.
I do not have much knowledge of tasers, but I believe tasers are viable to defend yourself but they are not the most effective in some situations. Bullets move faster than tasers, so tasers are best used from attacking out of the shooter's line of sight. The chance to stop multiple shooters with single taser will be extremely difficult.

@wontpostmuch: lol This is basil. The majority of people here, won't even keep an open mind to change, let alone go out into the world to make changes happen. If you are one of the rare few, who actually participate in protests, sign petitions and write letters to your gov, then all the power to you. I appreciate the motivation and effort you give, however, if you are just all talk...well meh. All of that understanding and sharing of ideas is useless.

Well as I said, to each their own. If you really think that voting in a president brings much change from one to the other that's your prerogative.

@redwings: No. You can't place a regular citizen with a gun license in a SWAT team or pretend they have good military training. Honestly, your view here is so naive and idealistic, I can't tell whether you truly believe this or are just being really lazy about having a genuine discussion. I mean Chris Kyle got caught off-guard by a passenger in his own car. It seems pretty obvious that guns can only help you so much; hell, even police forces acknowledge that people carrying knives or other make-shift weapons pose potent threats, even though they are armed with fire-weapons and other defensive tools.

Smh at the "let's ban guns" people. Have fun being helpless victims.

@wontpostmuch if a law abiding legally carrying citizen is carrying a gun,then damn well they know what they are doing and can prevent

@upcomingnerd: I mean, that's also a pretty bad line of reasoning. We may never know the ideal way of dealing with the situation, but I do think it's clear that whatever action ends up being taken, it should be much more nuanced and complicated than "well criminals will act criminally, so no precautions matter." That's the equivalent of not even having an anti-virus on your laptop.

I agree that our opinions, as they currently stand, are pretty useless. But that's why we should challenge and develop our views beyond the preliminary arguments people are giving here. A more complex understanding helps refine our views which will influence whatever laws are seriously considered by politicians. After all, social pressure and our right to vote has an impact on the ultimate outcome.

@wontpostmuch: Well to each their own. lol Truth is, we won't know who is right or wrong unless we have a time machine and a change of law. Weak, strong, meh our opinions are all useless anyway.

@redwings: How can you even assert that if someone had been armed, they could have done anything meaningful to prevent this from happening? People can get caught off guard, they could have been the first one shot by happenstance, or added to the confusion. Besides, given the other arguments made here, the shooter could have used some other means to kill as many people. How would allowing citizens to carry any gun help in preventing a bomber? Or a shooter with a bomb vest?

Saying that the result would "definitely" be less casualties just seems like a wholly unfounded claim to make. I don't think your average citizen is prepared enough to assess a situation like a mass shooting.

@ecarina holy ,your response makes me laugh! Also,none of those shootings did someone have an "assault rifle" ar-15's are not assault rifles despite their "military look" ar-15 stands for arma lite model 15, it is typically a .223 caliber semi-automatic just like a 9mm pistol is semi-automatic, and yes if a law abiding legally carry citizen was at those events,they could of prevented. Now would they have prevent ALL casualties? maybe,it will definitely be less. @quasar @rixworkwix

@upcomingnerd: Yes and no. I mean, it's true that if you want to acquire something, there will always be illegal avenues to do so. However, if you are stopped for suspicious activity and you are found with a banned assault weapon, that in itself would lead to an arrest and justify a further probe. Acting like if stricter regulation has no effects whatsoever is p dumb imo.

Idk how much gun control laws could have done for the Orlando incident but I also think your argument is extremely weak as is.

@quasar: Do people use assault rifles for recreational purposes? Furthermore, is recreation more important than human life?
When the police arrive at a crime scene, they're looking for someone with a gun. Similarly, the people at the crime scene know that a person with a gun is killing people. If you're running around with a gun trying to find the shooter, why would the police not arrest you? Why would the shooter not say "oh I'm looking for the killer, I'm a law-abiding citizen too"? How do the police know that you aren't the one who's just been killing people?
The way you say that implies that you want us to live in a world like the wild west, where you can get shot and killed at any time unless you're carrying a gun.
Why on Earth would the media not report a crime stopped by a law abiding citizen? That sounds like a pretty great news story there.
Fire Extinguishers don't cause fires, guns do cause death. False equivalence.

As for the questions:
I wouldn't carry a gun in the first place because I don't live in a third world country. I'm not defending my life every day, and I would like to live in a country where I don't have to. Given the situation, I don't see why a taser wouldn't do the trick, considering someone with a gun would usually want something from me, which would require them to get close. Either way, the situation would not be made better if I had a gun, especially compared to a taser.
You mean the non-lethal guns that shoot beanbags or the tasers? They should absolutely be allowed to use those, that would result in fewer deaths. Most police officers never have to shoot people, so it's a ridiculous notion that normal citizens should feel the need to carry a gun for their own safety.

Just going to say, maybe it isn't the gun law that is the problem maybe it's the people loool. We're allowed to own guns in Canada but our violence is a fraction of that of America for 100,000 people. For a first world country, America is a horrible place to live when it comes to firearm crime. Americans mindset is something the rest of the world cringes at.

@ecarina: Guns are not only used for killing people, guns can be used for recreational purposes as well. Sure guns are invented as weapons to kill another living creature, but the majority of people have good morals to not kill anybody for dumbest reasons. One reason why there are so many shootings is because not many people are prepared for gun violence to happen because people assume that strict gun laws protect them. The majority of these violent shootings are done with gun that has been illegally obtained because of strict gun laws which also restricts law abiding citizens from being able own a gun to defend themselves.

The police never show up in time to prevent massacres. A law abiding citizen carries a gun to prevent mass murders since it usually takes a long time for the police to arrive to stop violence. Law abiding citizens also follow the rules of gun safety to prevent themselves from shooting innocent bystanders.

The media never reports crimes stopped by a law abiding citizen, that's why you don't hear about them.

Law abiding citizens don't purchase guns in hopes to kill somebody similar to how people don't buy fire extinguishers and want a fire to happen.

I have two questions for you:
How would you defend yourself from a criminal with an illegally obtained gun that is trying to murder you?
Why should law abiding citizens not be allowed to use the same guns that law enforcement use to stop criminals?

@ecarina: It's painful to watch somebody use the phrase "by that logic" to follow onto a false comparison of the claim.

@redwings: Are you kidding? By that logic, no law is ever worth passing. Should we just have murder be legal because if people want to murder they can anyway? What about robbery? Law abiding citizens don't rob places so we're only taking that ability away from them and letting criminals get all the money. Do you leave your car unlocked all the time because criminals would be able to get in there anyway?
If guns are illegal, a criminal can be identified as a criminal as soon as they obtain a gun, rather than only once they've killed someone.
Secondly, how often do citizens with guns actually help defend themselves? Do you think Sandy Hook would have had fewer casualties if there had been two people running around trying to shoot someone? The shooter is only there to kill anyone he can, whereas people "defending themselves" are specifically trying to shoot the shooter. Since more bullets leads to more people accidentally getting shot, people "defending themselves" is helpful to the shooter. Besides, do you think the cops want to show up to a crime scene where 8 different people are all shooting at each other?
That argument about the second amendment boils down to "it should be legal because it's legal." If the second amendment gave you the right to jump off a bridge would you defend that right? It's not about whether you can carry weapons, it's about whether you should be allowed to. The constitution and bill of rights are not sacred, they were made by a bunch of old guys over 200 years ago. Even the telegraph isn't that old.
Also you seem to have this weird idea that people are born criminals and are always criminals all the time. People are law-abiding citizens until they commit a crime. We should make it harder for that to happen, and making it harder to get guns would do that.

Pretty much already been said, but criminals don't follow laws. They will always find a way to get guns,disarming the law abiding citizens of guns only puts them in danger without means to defend, besides that will never happen #2A we already shouldn't need a permit to carry when the second amendment IS our permit, a few states already don't need a permit since the second amendment is it. More states need to be like that

@ecarina strict gun control sure works very well in Mexico and El Salvador, countries in which criminals with guns kill civilians with ease. Prisons are also gun free but they are somehow extremely dangerous places. since you have taken criminal justice classes, surely you must have known of how inmates create their own weapons. and yes it's possible for a large amount of casualties with knifes. there have been attacks in crowded areas in china by people using knifes recently in these last few years.
@cuddymd if a guy came into my neighborhood with a gun with the intent to massacre, i'll wish i had a gun to shoot at him/her back. the 2nd amendment is in place for the people to have a means to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. nowadays, it's a mean to defend themselves from people like that. ive been in scenarios in which i would have felt safer if i had a gun for self-defense rather than just run away and hide while hoping for the best.

Funny that I'd come back to Maple Story this week, and then back to Basil Market yesterday. Two weeks ago, I was involved in an attempted mugging. Two dudes came out of a car; one with a bat, and one with a knife. They approached me and told me to hand over my phone and wallet. I pulled out my concealed carry firearm and told them that I didn't want any trouble. They immediately got back to their car and sped off. Just a small anecdote answering the question regarding the utility of firearms. Most gun owners have them to mitigate threats, usually without firing a single shot. True story, btw.

@cuddymd: lol, Who said I wasn't game to try it. I am. But it isn't me an insignificant person that matters. You need to take this argument and share it with those that do. I enjoy discussions such as this, but to actually make a change you need to reach the ears of those that have the power to make changes. Have you written any boards or associations, or is basil it? Good luck with your goals.

@cuddymd: the reason why they kill themselves is so that they can be with their 72 virgins in heaven.

@upcomingnerd again, you are not seeing the point i'm trying to make. no one is trying to completely eliminate gun homicides because that's very difficult. we are only trying to limit the potential of mass murders to occur, and banning assault weapons will do that. as for the weapons already out there, the government will begin a trade in system where people trade assault weapons for compensation. after a certain period, anyone with assault weapons will be charged and arrested.

you can think whatever you want but all you pro assault weapon people are just reluctant to even try to solve this problem. the thought of "it's not going to work, so let's not even try" is absolutely disgusting to me. you argue that people can still buy guns illegally but guess what they can do that in japan too but why is japan's gun homicide rates so low? it's because when you make things DIFFICULT, you lower probabilities of mass shootings. and that's all we want. LESS chances of mass shootings happening.

@cuddymd: Is cocaine legal in the US? No, but yet it is so easy to get a hold of. Do you think guns are any different, as I said before the two go hand in hand. Saying make guns HARDER to get is great if it's true but how do you make it harder at this point of time when a gun is so easily available to anyone on the street with money?

NRA, licenses etc who cares about that, the majority of criminals who possess a weapon do so illegally as it is the smarter thing to do. Think logically, you're a criminal, you're about to go rob a store. Do you, A) Register for a firearm, and have all your personal information imprinted to that firearm or B) Purchase an illegal firearm that cannot be traced back to you. I know difficult decision right.

A lot of these gunmen...what are you talking about? The minority cases of murder-suicides vs the mass majority of pure murder crimes in the US. Google it, so that you can see for yourself. Some of you youngsters make me shake my head. You receive the news from the sources that try to imprint messages into your brain and take it without question.

http://abc7chicago.com/news/42-people-shot-7-killed-in-chicago-weekend-violence/1383393/

That is Chicago alone after one weekend. One. You truly think that homicides being committed out on the streets of the states are really preventable by regulated gun laws? Or is it only that homicides that catch your attention via stateside news is worth your time and comments. Don't you see that what news is front lined is a means to control how you think.

Lets say that guns are banned tomorrow. How many of those people who own a gun illegally do you think will give up their firearms? The ones selling them for profit, probably not. The one's buying them for protection, probably not. The ones who have used them in a crime, again probably not. I just do not see how banning guns will lower any crime rates in a country polluted with means to illegal firearms. If the argument is well, at least we can prevent the rare cases from happening such as youngsters using legal firearms for committing crimes...then lel. If that is a victory to you then so be it. Though the question then becomes, is it worth it to disarm citizens who will have no means of protections against those who disregard the law in their own homes. Who knows.

The only way banning guns would ever work is to have a 0 tolerance policy in the US. You get caught with a gun, life in prison, no parole. Go China style and make the consequence of breaking the law so horrible you'd never question doing it. Screw human rights....as if that would ever happen but it would work.

@sammmmmich all these arguments about "they will find a way" is just plain wrong. you have to realize a lot of these gunmen are cowards which is why they kill themselves after they kill other people. the whole point is to make it HARDER for them to obtain weapons. nobody is saying banning guns will completely eliminate mass shootings. but it will significantly reduce the incidence of them happening, and you can't deny this. Make guns harder to obtain, less shootings will happen. If you argue against this, you are essentially saying, "oh, let's not even try to prevent mass murdering of innocent people". When a shooting finally happens to YOUR community, you will wish you supported gun control so that your friends and family could have been saved.

@ecarina Here lies the problem, how would one impose a more strict gun law on the US. What do you personally suggest? Why do you think it would be such a good idea to outlaw guns completely and try to make a "gun free America"? There are millions upon millions of guns in circulation here- it's a little late.
There is a logical argument to be made. We fought wars for certain rights. Second amendment protections were placed because those who fought for such rights they felt were needed. If there ever comes a time where we need to take arms to defend the constitution against an enemy - foreign and domestic, we'll be glad we never gave up such a right.

I think people, have a hard time conceptualizing the implications of a systematic failure of our government. The best examples we have are probably events like Hurricane Katrina and the LA riots. Those situations were eventually controlled to our best ability because some power structure existed above them. Now picture that on a massive scale where there is no one to put their foot down to end it.

That's why the second amendment still exists. Not all people believe the government/local police can protect them. Thus we have what some consider- or what the Constitution considers a "human right" in taking the defense of your family into your own hands.

If you think a government turning on its civilians is "outside the realm of possibility." In the past century or so, I present to you Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Ze Dong, and Hussein. They have the blood of over a 100 million innocents on their hands..

I strongly believe that the founding father's intent was fairly clear on second amendment rights. Seeing as they actually saw a warzone and were subjected to tyranny, I trust their conclusions and solution to prevent it from happening in the future. Could it be an out-dated ideology? Maybe. But the cost of being over-enthusiastic in giving away such a crucial right (after all, it was the second thing they thought was worth protecting) could have disastrous consequences.

Unfortunately, this guy did everything right. No amount of gun laws or restrictions would have stopped him. He was a security contractor for 9 years. Even if civilians weren't allowed guns, he'd still be able to get one. He passed all the marks, he was patient. You cannot blame the guns in this case, but the twisted ideals of a man.

@cuddymd - http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/207152/
Feel free to fact check. Removing them may reduce suicides by gun as opposed to homicides in general. People have been murdering one another since the dawn of time- they'll find a way. There's more to these violent crimes than the tools used to carry them out. Ban guns, and we'll just see more bombings.

@ecarina Thank you for taking the words right out of my mouth

@ecarina is right. if you just stop and look at data from other nations with strict gun laws, you will realize gun control DOES work. Just look at Japan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

You think gun laws will prevent mass shootings? Please tell us more about how criminals abide laws.

We had laws against consuming alcohol... then we legalized it, I guess for the better. There's talks of legalizing weed, which will be the catalyst and stepping stone to legalizing more harsher drugs.

Take away guns, it gives terrorists more income for selling something not legally obtainable... also one of the arguments to legalize weed :^).

I like killing people and pickling their kidneys and genitalia.

No,you have never lived or grew up in the poorer side of America. Guns are necessary to protect oneself. It gives us a sense of power and security because we have control. Also, the right to beararms is to also protect ourselves from the government.

@upcomingnerd: Except they don't. I took a Criminology course last semester, criminals will seek out houses that are easy to rob. If, for instance, you have an alarm system, most criminals will decide it's not worth their time and will find a different house. They really don't do whatever's necessary, they do what's easiest and least likely to get them caught.

I don't really understand the purpose behind the child taking the gun from his parents analogy. If guns were illegal that wouldn't happen, and if the family did still have an illegal gun, chances are it wouldn't be out in the open where a child could get his hands on it. If the family is stupid enough to keep the gun out in the open where their child can find it, they're not going to be able to hide it from a cop for long. As for why the child felt the need to get the gun, it's because children are curious. In your early years in life, most of what your brain occupies itself with is learning about your environment. When a child sees a gun, it's something new that they want to learn about. Children being curious isn't some fault of our society, it's just human nature.

Cars serve a purpose other than killing things. Guns do not. I've heard the argument that guns are used at shooting ranges and stuff for recreational purposes, but then that begs the question of whether a recreational activity is more important than human life.

You can say that we need to work on our country's mental health and prejudices all you want, and we do, but that's not the only problem here. As is, it's way too easy for someone to do what Omar Mateen did, and even if banning guns won't prevent the problem completely, it will at least lessen it. Moving forward is better than planting your feet and insisting that nothing can be done.
(Not that that's what you've done of course, you said you're open to change, but still.)

@ecarina: No but if he had an IED it would be more like 200

@ecarina: lol touche but I suppose I do it out of habit as a flawed sense of security. Because that really is true, someone could just break in either way. A locked door really does not stop someone intent on committing a robbery. Which furthers my point, criminals will do whatever is necessary, no laws will prevent them..or locks.

I am open minded to change though. If stricter gun laws were passed and it did prevent crime, then that would be amazing. I personally do not see it happening in a country like America in it's current state but you never know. I would adopt stricter prison sentences to people convicted of owning an illegal firearm or causing loss of life illegally by a legal firearm than to remove gun rights by law abiding citizens.

It's almost as silly as saying, well some people speed with their cars so lets take away everyone's car. Speeds lead to far more deaths a year in America than guns do. If a child goes and take's a gun from his parent...you really think the issue is the child having open access to a gun? Not why did the child feel the need to go get a gun in the first place? People are the source of every problem in this world and yet, we are also the solution. Blaming an object for our crimes and neglect is pathetic, when we really need to blame ourselves and work on a solution.

@upcomingnerd: You're officially my favourite person here.

@mrsatan:...you mean to point out that the problem started when Islam tried to destroy Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Mithraism and Buddhism? Because that was the first thing Islam tried to do after taking over central Arabia. Islam is the religion of violently destroying everything that came before it...which was, essentially, everyone on earth.

In other words - that's not gonna solve anything. We all need to work out something different.

In the end...the west can say this is a problem of Islam and ignore it...and the middle east can say this is a problem of the infidels and ignore it...and it'll never go away.

We're all involved whether we want to be or not because in the end we're all tangentially related to the mess...if only by paternity/maternity and the reality of interdependence. It's exceedingly complicated...but giving up and refusing to take a side is nothing more than sentimental stupidity and laziness. Fights in our world don't begin and end with personal responsibility. Being able to make a philosophical argument of innocence means nothing as long as there are people living under the impacts of our ancestors -- responsibility that we can each trace back to ourselves and our family if we work hard enough at it.

In other words we all have to work out our own salvation...not through fear and trembling but through acknowledgement of the reality of profound interdependence. There's no such thing as isolationism in our world anymore. You may be innocent in a court of law - but so long as you live in a world where the benefits of someone elses crime still impact you, good or bad, nothing you do is innocent and no matter how hard you try - nothing is done in a vacuum. You're standing on the shoulders of the people who came before you no matter how long you scream platitudes and bumper sticker slogans about peace and tolerance. It sucks, yeah, but this is the world we're all born into and we're all saddled with the problems of our ancestors...regardless of our intentions and 'innocence.'

People are forgetting that other countries that do have strict gun laws (England, Spain, Australia) don't have mass shootings. It's not about whether or not it's POSSIBLE for them to get guns, it's about whether or not it's easy. Also, if guns are illegal and the police catch someone with a gun, that specific gun is no longer on the street. You can't just think about what's going to happen the day after the law is passed, it will reduce the number of guns in the US over time.
Like... sure, maybe gun laws wouldn't stop really dedicated terrorists. They would have stopped the Sandy Hook guy though, he stole his mom's gun. Just because gun laws might not fix every single problem and remove all guns from all crazy peoples' hands doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, because civilians having guns doesn't do anything good. Do you think the cops want to show up to a crime scene and see 8 people shooting at each other? How will they know who to arrest? What if they arrest the wrong guy and get shot in the back of the head by the shooter?
@upcomingnerd: That argument is flawed. Do you keep your doors unlocked at night because a criminal would have found a way to get into your house anyway? They can just break the window, so what's the point of locks?

I also think people are forgetting how important it is to not blame all Muslims for this. When do you think a Muslim person is more likely to join ISIS? When people understand that he's not part of a hive mind and just because a Muslim guy killed someone that doesn't mean he did it? Or when everyone starts blaming him for something he didn't do and he feels disenfranchised and isolated? You realize that Islamophobia benefits ISIS right? The largest Muslim civil rights group condemned the attack and urged Muslims to donate blood.

@xdwow2: Would over 50 people have died if he'd had a knife?

Focus on the cause, not the means.

@stoker: well then drink enough so that you never come back

this may be a surprise to you, but terrorists could just adapt if there were stricter gun laws. it wouldn't surprise me if they got their hands on illegal guns, anyway. also do u remember the boston marathon BOMBING? proof that they don't need guns to do a lot of damage. the only thing abolishing the 2nd amendment would do is get a lot of cops killed. there's plenty of crazies that are perfectly fine now, but if they were told they had to hand their guns over, they'd do some big damage to cops. the reason the 2nd amendment exists in the first place was so that if the government goes crazy, the citizens can fight back.

It's too late. People have been distorting the 2nd amendment meaning for wayy to long.

There are other means to commit mass murder aside from guns, and even if guns are regulated, the government can't really stop black market fire arms from moving around. I mean, they can't even block drugs, so what makes you think they can for fire arms?

I think your argument forgets to consider a few other things:

1) that if we take guns away from the people that doesn't necessarily solve the fact that these people may still have the motive and intention of performing such crimes, such as those on the scale of the Orlando shooting...

2) that it's pretty difficult to distinguish the factors behind crime rates between different regions, especially between different countries. Countries tend to define crime very differently and consider them in different contexts.
So any argument involving a comparison between a country that has a lower crime rate and stricter gun laws and a country like the United States doesn't take into consideration a lot of the factors that can influence crime rates in each respective region.
For example, Mexico can be argued to have stricter gun laws, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're any good at enforcing them... or that anything is done in regards to crime there
This goes for states that may have differing gun laws from one another (say, Chicago versus New Hampshire in terms of their laws and crime rates)

In other words it's a lot more complicated than just "we need better gun laws" and "FBI agents"

Criminals...disobey the law. Who cares if guns aren't allowed in a country or not, criminals will still get a hold of them if they choose to. If you have money, you can buy anything in this world, legal or illegal. Gun laws aren't going to make any difference when it comes down to criminal activity.

If he hadn't bought them legally, he would have bought them illegally. The amount of drugs and gangs in the USA, weapons will always be available to those that want them. Illegal arms in the US is a huge business.