Nashville school shooter legally bought 7 firearms from 5 stores, police chief says
Source: CBS News
The assailant in the Nashville school shooting legally bought seven firearms from five local stores and used three of those weapons in Monday's attack. Police said the gun purchases were made over the past few years and hidden from the assailant's parents, with whom the shooter lived.
The parents of the shooter, 28-year-old Audrey Hale, felt their child shouldn't own any weapons. They believed that the shooter had only one weapon and sold it, Metropolitan Nashville Police Chief John Drake told reporters on Tuesday.
The shooter had also been receiving treatment for an "emotional disorder" which had not been reported to authorities.
Tennessee doesn't have a "red flag" law that could give police the authority to remove weapons from a person, Drake said. If it had been reported that the shooter was suicidal or intended to hurt another person then authorities would have tried to take the weapons away, the chief said.
Read more: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nashville-school-shooter-guns-legally-bought-used-tennessee-rampage/
Renew Deal
(81,846 posts)IronLionZion
(45,380 posts)right up until they start shooting people
Justice
(7,185 posts)Law enforcement should be notified of purchases from a particular person. Seems like 7 should get attention from law enforcement. I'd be interested in a more precise timeframe (how many in last 4 months)
Where did shooter train?
Sgent
(5,857 posts)After the purchase all electronic records are destroyed and can only be kept by the gun store (law).
No training is required to buy guns in TN. Training maybe required for concealed carry.
Given what we know about the shooters parents / school it is likely he was schooled as part of childhood.
RockRaven
(14,899 posts)Novara
(5,821 posts)stopdiggin
(11,242 posts)do they, or don't they - have the ability to remove weapons? Is 'red flag' more narrowly defined than what is given here?
I know it's immaterial in this case (and probably in the vast majority of others), but ...
reACTIONary
(5,768 posts).... My interpretation is that they don't have the legal authority, but they would talk to the person and to persuade them... exercising informal or social aurjority.
PufPuf23
(8,755 posts)The shooter has no excuse and neither do the parents.
Why should we assume such a thing?
When I was 18, let alone 28, my folks had no idea what I owned and what I did not.
I wasn't living at home, but even if I had been, there's no way they could have known everything I was up to.
Do you really think the parents in this case would have kept such information from police, when they are clearly on record as having taken their offspring to get help.
If the kids was 14 or 16, or even 18, I might agree, but at 28 kids have their own lives.
lees1975
(3,839 posts)and not know that they have seven weapons in the house where you also live? That's completely irresponsible.
Same story from the Highland Park, Illinois shooter. Parents getting him mental help but didn't know he had an assault weapon.
keopeli
(3,491 posts)rwheeler31
(6,242 posts)Those weapons are expensive and difficult to hide. There is a lot more to investigate. If she was a danger to herself and others it seems she could have been involuntarily committed to a hospital program. So many things in this story make no sense.
Aussie105
(5,334 posts)Gun manufacturers say - great customer!
Killings happen . . .
Gun shop and gun manufacturers turn their backs and say - still don't see a problem.
Politicians weep fake tears, send thoughts & prayers, and say they really don't know what to do about the problem.
Might be the drag queens, the CRT thing, the books with naughty words . . .
And the beat goes on - nothing uplifting, it is a funeral dirge.
no_hypocrisy
(46,025 posts)they intend to use it -- someday. It's a akin to someone buying a skillet at Bed, Bath, and Beyond; it's going to be used, not saved for a collection.
Novara
(5,821 posts)People collect figurines just to look at. They don't collect guns just to look at.
IronLionZion
(45,380 posts)they'll always say it's none of our business. It could be anything from sport shooting to overthrowing the government. We won't know until it's too late.
TeamProg
(6,041 posts)for hunting, protecting livestock or pets from coyotes and cougars, target, skeet, and are mostly long guns. Guns for Home protection / self defense is more of a suburban and big city thing where handguns are prominent.
IMO, the thought of murdering a human being is way down the list (!) of reasons and intentions of most firearm purchasers.
If you are a security guard then your intention is defensive, sure.
If you live on a large parcel of land in the wild, defense vs. humans isnt a priority.
I think all auto loading long guns, handguns and 5+ round magazines should be prohibited from public ownership. Slow loading bolt, pump or lever action only.
Or outlawing firearms completely would be way better.
People do buy antique/collectible guns with no intention to shoot them.
sarisataka
(18,493 posts)To collect, just like people collect about everything else imaginable. They may never fire it.
Use is a broad term. Hunting, target shooting..., is a gun bought for home defense in "use" when it is in a biometric gun safe?
Zeitghost
(3,846 posts)Simply do not back that hypothesis.
We have hundreds of millions of guns in private hands and the vast, vast majority are never used illegally.
twodogsbarking
(9,675 posts)Sancho
(9,067 posts)This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that werent secured are out of control in our society. As such, heres what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. Im not debating the legal language, I just think its the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because its clear that they should never have had a gun.
1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learners license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.
Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a drivers license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.
bluestarone
(16,859 posts)Especially number 5. Insurance would be ANOTHER way to track the owners. Plus if they can force a person to carry car insurance then GUN insurance would be no different!!
Lokilooney
(322 posts)Or any other monetary checkpoint would probable fall under "poll tax". Some others are iffy unless you believe one should need to take a course to be able to vote or peaceably assemble. As for being assessed by a professional who will give an opinion as to whether or not the constitution should apply to someone is rather dystopian. As to the car thing, driving is privilege and not in the constitution.
The most realistic and effective measure would be a standardized 50 state background check which then one would get a permit to purchase/transfer that has an expiry date and would even apply to transfers among family members. And even though that sounds pretty basic you would have to drop the family member provision for it to even be remotely considered by any legislature.
I will say this about that list though, I couldn't think of anything more effective for keeping guns out of the hands of minorities...
Initech
(100,038 posts)And people are OK with this. Fuck the NRA.
Kaleva
(36,250 posts)Gun Owners of America.
It's a fast growing organization that may soon surpass the NRA. It's members are folks who think the NRA has gone soft