More gun control law proposals....

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by PracticalMac

Cars are a very valid example ...

Motor vehicles are a really bad example because you overlook the utility of motor vehicles compared with firearms.

Please try this mental experiment ...

Imagine if overnight every motor vehicle disappeared. How would you get to work? For some people, their car is their work. How would we get raw materials transported for manufacturing? How would we get retail products delivered? In short, our economy and social structure would come to a grinding halt.

Now ...

Imagine if overnight every gun disappeared. The next day, no one would get shot. And you might have to find a new hobby to replace target practice.

See the difference?

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by Menel

If it does nothing to prevent mass shootings.

Um, we have a gun problem, not just a mass shooting problem.

----------

Originally Posted by PracticalMac

Cars are a very valid example, just like a weapon in the hands of someone who does not know the rules and respect its destructive potential it will easily kill someone.

Of course the function is different, but the lethality is the same.

Cars are a ridiculous analogy. Cars require training, testing and a license before you can operate one. Not true for guns. Cars are designed for transportation; guns are designed to kill. Cars require insurance, registration and usually annual inspections. Guns do not.

[Menel]

Originally Posted by rdowns

Um, we have a gun problem, not just a mass shooting problem.[COLOR="#808080"]

Our car problem is much more severe. Can we just ban them already and go back to bicycles?

The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[6] with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.[7]

Motor vehicle deaths:

2007 41,059

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...n_U.S._by_year

By nearly a facter of 3x!!! yes, ban cars.

[erickkoch]

Originally Posted by Lord Blackadder

On the other hand, I think it's irresponsible to throw up your hands and say "more gun laws are pointless". Yes, we need to better enforce what's on the books first and foremost. But I cannot and will not let the status quo continue. Something has to change. We have to be proactive. If we haven't yet hit on a system that works, we need to keep trying, not give up.

You make a good point. However, as I see it, the laws being proposed are essentially laws governing certain engineering aspects of the firearm itself, banning features or functionality which can be circumvented with more creative engineering, as has happened in California.

Perhaps when can come to agree that we may need some kind of restrictions on access, such as requiring weapons being secured, and if they can't be, removed, when a mentally or emotionally disturbed person resides at that residence. I would support such laws.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by Menel

Our car problem is much more severe. Can we just ban them already and go back to bicycles?



Motor vehicle deaths:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...n_U.S._by_year

By nearly a facter of 3x!!! yes, ban cars.

Although, I too, think it's a ridiculous and desperate analaogy, I wonder how many cars we have in the US and how that compares to the number of guns.

Your link also showed that 2011 had the lowest number of traffic fatalities in 63 years. Assuming that we had more cars in 2011 than we did in 1949, it appears things are safer than they once were. Why do you think that is?

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by Menel

Our car problem is much more severe. Can we just ban them already and go back to bicycles?



Motor vehicle deaths:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...n_U.S._by_year

By nearly a facter of 3x!!! yes, ban cars.

Please point out where I want to ban guns or is it simply more paranoid delusions from the pro-gun crowd? Banning cars would be as misguided as banning guns. We should regulate guns at least as strictly as we do cars, if not more so.

[Menel]

Originally Posted by rdowns

Please point out where I want to ban guns or is it simply more paranoid delusions from the pro-gun crowd? Banning cars would be as misguided as banning guns. We should regulate guns at least as strictly as we do cars, if not more so.

At least as strictly? Cars are lax.

Even in gun friendly hillbilly state where I am, gun purchases require state and federal criminal background check, and mental health background check. You don't have that for cars.

Anyone with a criminal or crazy past can go purchase a 4,000lb killing machine.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Menel

Anyone with a criminal or crazy past can go purchase a 4,000lb killing machine.

Don't be ridiculous.

Guns don't weigh 4,000 lbs.

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by Menel

At least as strictly? Cars are lax.

Even in gun friendly hillbilly state where I am, gun purchases require state and federal criminal background check, and mental health background check. You don't have that for cars.

Anyone with a criminal or crazy past can go purchase a 4,000lb killing machine.

Except for gun show and private gun sales (estimated at 40% of all gun sales) that require none of those. Anyone with a criminal or crazy past can go purchase a killing machine there.

[quagmire]

Originally Posted by Menel

At least as strictly? Cars are lax.

I agree with you there. Our drivers ed need much to be desired.....

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Menel

Our car problem is much more severe.

And do you know the solution to reducing the number of fatalities?

It's obvious.

We need to get more cars in the hands of more people.

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

And do you know the solution to reducing the number of fatalities?

It's obvious.

We need to get more cars in the hands of more people.

If we had more people with more cars, we'd have fewer or no busses full of people for crazies to crash into. They'd have to crash into people one car at a time.

[Lord Blackadder]

Originally Posted by erickkoch

You make a good point. However, as I see it, the laws being proposed are essentially laws governing certain engineering aspects of the firearm itself, banning features or functionality which can be circumvented with more creative engineering, as has happened in California.

Perhaps when can come to agree that we may need some kind of restrictions on access, such as requiring weapons being secured, and if they can't be, removed, when a mentally or emotionally disturbed person resides at that residence. I would support such laws.

As long as people can find some common ground, it doesn't matter that we don't agree on everything. Some of the bans are superficial, it's true. But part of the blame for that goes to the NRA, who ensure that most gun control efforts fail and those that get passed into law are watered down as much as possible. If the NRA got on board with some of this stuff it would be more effective. But so far they've been categorically against any further gun regulation, period.

[k995]

Originally Posted by Menel

At least as strictly? Cars are lax.

Even in gun friendly hillbilly state where I am, gun purchases require state and federal criminal background check, and mental health background check. You don't have that for cars.

Anyone with a criminal or crazy past can go purchase a 4,000lb killing machine.

Cars are not designed to kill people, they are actually designed that even in a collision they dont kill.

Throwing in the "peope get killed by cars also" is trying to change the subject. The issue is guns, if you want strat another one on car safety.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by rdowns

If we had more people with more cars, we'd have fewer or no busses full of people for crazies to crash into. They'd have to crash into people one car at a time.

A very fine point.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by Lord Blackadder

Speaking as a gun owner myself, these arguments are beginning to ring hollow because 1) many gun owners are not being responsible enough 2) the NRA is increasingly relying on a paranoid fringe and thus losing credibility and 3) mass shootings are becoming far too common for the public to be soothed by the timeworn arguments against gun control the NRA and allied groups trot out.

If the NRA and gun owners in general continue to refuse to even talk about further gun control measures as well as better enforcement of existing laws (which a agree is an absolute necessity), the discussion will eventually move on without them and their influence will shrink to a rump of what it is now. Most gun owners (in my experience) are failing to see this and continue to (proverbially) shoot themselves in the foot through their own intransigence.

Oh the NRA has been ridiculous at times. I am glad a body exists to defend gun rights but at this point in time, the most important issue needs to be a resolution to these (many) unnecessary gun deaths, and ideally a resolution that does not restrict legal ownership. But that can't happen in a vacuum, and the saddest part is that the NRA could play the lead role in this, and likely avert more restrictive gun laws. They have enough influence in that they can probably reduce gun deaths even more so than legislators. They need to take more of an active role and saying "you say you want more restrictive gun laws to accomplish X, we think we can accomplish X without these measures by ________, so let's start with ________."

Originally Posted by PracticalMac

This is very much the same thing I am advocating, only expand it as mandatory education in all schools.

You just confirmed that education, not restrictions, is the best (not ideal) solution.

I believe education will not only be more effective than restrictions, but that it would result in a reduction of non-self defense gun-related deaths while simultaneously preserving ownership rights. I see it as a good starting point for people on both sides of the debate.

School shootings are terrible and while not acceptable, accidental gun-related deaths far outnumber them and so that needs to be a priority. I have no doubt in my mind that education can greatly reduce these deaths. And that is because I have seen it first hand for years.

Originally Posted by Menel

You're going to have to explain what some of these are, like 'cash-n-carry loophole'?

The Newtown Massacre, the weapons were purchased by a woman who by every indication passed all criminal and mental health background checks, and bought from a major retail chain going by the strictest letter of the law. She was also vetted by the state gov't as a school teacher to teach children.

Why propose useless legislation that doesn't address this?

You can't be safe in a gun free zone when that zone is easily crossed. Nor by creating blockades and hoops for law abiding good people to jump through, criminals don't care anyway.

You have to ban the sale of all firearms, handgun and long arms combined with nationwide door to door searches confiscating and destroying all firearms, knives, pipes, ropes, wrenches and candlesticks! You'll need a constitutional amendment, 2/3 vote by states to strip us of the bill of rights and the individual right to firearms for self defense. But it's valid path that addresses how Adam Lanza's mother was able to obtain firearms.

You might also consider stripping away a bunch of gov't laws that restrict law abiding citizens, so that school administrators could carry. Instead of lunging helplessly unarmed, or hiding in closets, they could react when police aren't at hand.

There is a cash and carry loophole in which in some states, a FFL is allowed to release a gun without calling in a 4473. That is, the 4473 form includes ID verification and a criminal background check by the BATF. It takes about 5 minutes to complete. Very few FFLs still do it because it is a huge liability and most FFLs are genuinely dedicated to keeping straw guns off the market.

The other loophole is secondary firearm sales. No 4473 is required and unless a state has a supplemental body of litigation, there is no background check.

Why propose useless legislation that doesn’t address a single incident out of 30,000? Can you answer that?

Furthermore, how does a background check strip laws from people legally qualified to own a firearm? I worked for a FFL for years. Even when we were authorized for ‘discretionary release’ we did not once release a firearm until we had full BATF approval…can you guess why? Gun stores aren’t evil.

Let’s take it a step further. We never sold a gun to a person who did not have some sort of safety training (with exceptions such as if it was say a young man buying his first firearm with his father). Can you guess why here? How would mandatory safety training requirements harm legal gun owners? It wouldn't…in fact, it protects gun rights.

As far as having qualified armed personnel on schools, I’ve advocated looking further into this in another thread. In my opinion, more research needs to be done on the topic but it is worth looking into.

[Lord Blackadder]

Originally Posted by NickZac

Oh the NRA has been ridiculous at times. I am glad a body exists to defend gun rights but at this point in time, the most important issue needs to be a resolution to these (many) unnecessary gun deaths, and ideally a resolution that does not restrict legal ownership. But that can't happen in a vacuum, and the saddest part is that the NRA could play the lead role in this, and likely avert more restrictive gun laws. They have enough influence in that they can probably reduce gun deaths even more so than legislators. They need to take more of an active role and saying "you say you want more restrictive gun laws to accomplish X, we think we can accomplish X without these measures by ________, so let's start with ________."

A few years ago I'd agree with this. But I am fed up with the NRA's obstructionism and fear-mongering. I'll tell you the precise moment that happened: the day I received a letter from the NRA soliciting my membership, and calling me a traitor if I didn't join up. This organization has gone too far, and long since made a mockery of its original purpose.

[SporkLover]

I'd like to hear what the NRA and law makers eventually come out with.

Personally I'm not convinced yet that any form of additional gun control would have affected the outcome of this situation one way or another. He carried two other powerful hand guns, they were all legally obtained by lawful citizens. If he didn't have an assault style rifle he had two other guns that would have produced the same results.

On that front, I'm not sure responding to the control issue emotionally will make any meaningful progress.

While I do question the place of assault style rifles in the hands of private citizens, I would like lawmakers, lobbyist, and citizens alike to instead consider why Adam Lanza had access to these weapons when initial indicators show that he was somewhat off kilter. Owning a gun is an incredible responsibility and gun owners should have to bear more of a burden ensuring that they don't fall into the wrong hands. Electronic trigger smart locks, mandatory gun safes, etc.

I look forward to see what the NrA has to offer up.

[LIVEFRMNYC]

Let's arm every and anybody with military style auto and/or semi auto rifles with high capacity clips/mags, but god forbid if Iran makes nuclear weapons.

[Ugg]

Originally Posted by Lord Blackadder

A few years ago I'd agree with this. But I am fed up with the NRA's obstructionism and fear-mongering. I'll tell you the precise moment that happened: the day I received a letter from the NRA soliciting my membership, and calling me a traitor if I didn't join up. This organization has gone too far, and long since made a mockery of its original purpose.

It bothers me greatly that the NRA is responsible for a great deal of the fear and paranoia that pervades the American landscape today. Crime is down across the board yet the NRA seems to think more guns of ALL types are necessary for our well being.

Fear and paranoia are not American values and it pains me to see otherwise reasonable people be exploited by such gross propaganda.

[rdowns]

Seems to me, all sides have a lot more common ground than the NRA and our politicians would have you believe.

A lefty site but a very interesting poll on gun issues.

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by Menel

Our car problem is much more severe. Can we just ban them already and go back to bicycles?



Motor vehicle deaths:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...n_U.S._by_year

By nearly a facter of 3x!!! yes, ban cars.

Can you supply a stat with how many people use a vehicle per day vs. how many people use a gun per day? Let's see how they compare, then you can bring your ridiculous assertions back.

[Menel]

Originally Posted by samiwas

Can you supply a stat with how many people use a vehicle per day vs. how many people use a gun per day? Let's see how they compare, then you can bring your ridiculous assertions back.

Broken statistic and can't be tabulated. However; we can determine how many are owned. Besides, the idea is not to use a gun per se, seeing as how it's a tool for self-defense. And would only be legitimately deployed in defense of life.

Newtown massacre for example, firearms were taken from a person with valid and legitimate ownership for self-defense, and used to murder. They weren't being used as intended. Same as when cars plow into each other and/or over people murdering, not their intent.

Guns are in existent, just like cars. So existent numbers are more applicable.

Overall, there were an estimated 254.4 million registered passenger vehicles in the United States according to a 2007 DOT study.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passeng..._United_States

The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in the United States is 270,000,000

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

15 million fewer cars, but 3x the death rate.

[nuckinfutz]

I like guns ....and i'm going to buy a LOT of them.

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."

Thomas Jefferson

[copykris]

i love when people quote notorious slave owners to drive their point home