Does any gun control make sense?

[Spats McGee]

First of all, I haven't had time to read the whole thread. Nonetheless, I did read the OP, and have a few comments:

. . . .I know that many people believe the anti-gun folks take an extreme position, so any concessions is a movement in the wrong direction. . . . .

Why would we believe otherwise? There's plenty of evidence out there that the endgame for the antigun movement is total disarmament.

I believe that taking an extreme position is not only unreasonable, but counter productive (much like partisan politics). . . . .

From a constitutional rights perspective, since when is refusing to give up fundamental, individual rights "unreasonable?" And since when am I required to be "reasonable" in deciding which rights I'm willing to sacrifice?

As for it being "counterproductive," I think you have to ask "counterproductive to what?" The antis are trying to disarm the entire American public, if I can do something counterproductive to that goal, I really should.

So what types of "controls" would you, my fellow TFL members, feel is reasonable and would prevent some of the senseless tragedies that have been occurring way too frequently? I know that law abiding citizens are the only ones who will abide by gun laws and that they are not the ones perpetrating these crimes.

If you know the bolded parts above, then why are you bothering to ask? If you know that: (1) law abiding citizens are the only ones who will abide by gun laws; and (2) law abiding citizens not the ones perpetrating these crimes, but continue to ask what new controls I'd be willing to put in place, then your question boils down to, "What new restrictions would you allow to be placed on your rights for no apparent reason whatsoever?" Answer: none.

. . . .I believe that all gun owners should be required to take some sort of gun safety class. This just seems like common sense to me. . . . .

So you'd require gov't approved training to exercise a fundamental Constitutional right? Would you also require a civics and patriotism classes before allowing one to write letters to the editor of the local newspaper?

. . . .I know that gun registration is a highly volatile topic, but how can the police prove that a gun is stolen if it isn't registered? . . . .

Umm, by putting the actual owner on the stand to testify, "In 2012, I bought a Kimber XYZ, serial number 12345, which was stolen from my house on Thanksgiving Day of 2013. Looking at the Defendant's gun, I see that it looks exactly like the one that was stolen from my house, and bears the same serial number." It's really not that complicated..

. . . . While many may see any sort of registration as an potential gun grab, it is also a form of accountability. After all, we are required to register our cars and boats.

Cars and boats are not constitutionally protected. Arms are. Further, while mass public shootings are hot-topic items in the news, emotional impact tends to be a pretty terrible way to assign who gets what rights.

. . . . I believe that offering practical, well-thought-out solutions will strengthen our rights and prevent useless anti-gun legislation.

So you'll propose some anti-gun legislation to prevent worse anti-gun legislation. I'm pretty sure that's called "appeasement."

No, thank you.

 

[stephen426]

@KirkPatrick,

Thank you for your well thought out response. While I don't know you personally, your response indicates that you are quite functional and that you are not a raving lunatic hell bent on destruction.

I am not saying that you should have your Second Amendment rights stripped and that you should not have the right to defend yourself. In fact, I believe that your first hand knowledge makes you much more informed than me when it comes to who should and who should not be allowed to purchase weapons.

I'm pretty sure that you would agree that Holmes (Aurora, CO) and Cho (VA Tech) should not have been allowed to simply walk into a gun store and buy guns. Maybe you might disagree and say that we only knew they were crazy in retrospect, after their actions. Does that mean we should just accept things they way they are and that mass shootings are just a part of life?

I know there are plenty of mentally ill people that are non-violent. I know that there are also plenty of people that take anti-depressants without any problems at all. I DO believe that there needs to be more over-sight to ensure that the wrong people are not given unrestricted access to firearms.

 

[stephen426]

@Tom Servo,

You're the one who claims that new restrictions and regulations are needed. The burden of proof is on you. Furthermore, if you think that further regulation is a solution, you really haven't done much research on the issue.

I'm sorry Tom, but if the spat of recent mass shootings is not enough proof for you, I don't know what would suffice.

The whole notion that we are irresponsible because we won't volunteer to have our rights stripped is a cheap tactic that I've heard more than once from the gun-control lobby over the years.

I am not the anti-gun lobby. Do you feel that mass shootings are the norm and that we are powerless to prevent or reduce them? Maybe that should have been the question since the term "gun control" has everyone's hackles up. I believe as responsible, law-abiding gun owners, our voices need to be heard. We now have a serious united front against us with a LOT of money backing it. I don't think we can simply ignore it.

We are not enforcing the laws we currently have on the books. I know. I've directly observed that several times.

If you want things to change, let's take a better look at that.

What gun laws do you not see being enforced? What are we doing to ensure those laws are being enforced? There are laws that I believe are practically unenforceable. Ensuring that guns are properly and securely stored would have certainly prevented Lanza from gaining access to his mother's guns. I believe secured guns would have prevented Columbine as well. How many children bring guns to school and accidentally shoot other children because of unsecured guns? The problem is that police cannot go from home to home and ensure guns are securely stored. Punishing parents after the fact does not bring back anyone's kid from the grave.

 

[stephen426]

@wogpotter, Vanya, AND Ramius,

The term "sensible" to the anti-gun crowd may be to ban everything, but let's not get caught up on semantics here. Can we, as TFL members (and gun enthusiasts), think of anything that will PREVENT OR REDUCE MASS SHOOTINGS, WITHOUT GIVING UP OUR RIGHTS TO BASIC SELF DEFENSE)?

If you listen to political rhetoric, "sensible" and "common-sense" usually mean closer to "whatever I think" than "ideas with ample evidence and logical basis." They have become sound bytes to try to turn the conversation in a favorable manner, and are regularly used by both major parties to try to sway people without evidence or logic.

I am not trying to pass legislation based on "what I think" nor am I trying to reduce my OWN rights to self defense. I hope there is something that can be done to reduce these mass shootings and that we can be part of the solution.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The sensible way to reduce the harm of mass shootings is to have competent people with firearms at the scene.

Thus, school carry bans must go.

Those who choose to carry should train up to a reasonable standard. I'm not saying this should be mandated but it is your moral obligation. I'm ok with the schools paying for or teaming with the law to train those who have permits or licenses.

This may be repetitious:

1. Sensible and CAPS are hallmarks of a moral panic that something must be done.

2. There professional reviews are crystal clear that we have no way of predicting violence from the 'normal' or mentally ill except in very limited circumstances. These seem to be clear histories of violence and the pairing of explicit threats along with a hidden arsenal. The latter is hard to detect, the former depends on folks sharing their suspicions.

3. Do suspicions lead to seizure without due process - it shouldn't.

Folks who don't have a technical knowledge of mental illness are subject to cliches and overestimating the techniques that can predict violence. They really don't have handle on risk.

I mentioned on THR that diabetes can cause psychological disturbances. You can see irrational behavior and violence. Thus, should the millions of diabetics be banned? Huh?

So for every Lanza or Holmes - you would get thousands and thousands of false positives.

A teacher at Sandy Hook herded her charges into the restroom and covered them with her body (or so I read). They were all killed. Perhaps, it would have been better if she had shot Lanza coming through the door.

 

[stephen426]

@born2climb,

Since this can of worms has been opened, I'd like to take this opportunity to pose a question that I have often asked, and never received a plausible answer to.....When was the last time you heard of a LEGAL CRIME being committed with a gun, regardless of whether the gun was obtained legally or not? They always want to start their rhetoric about how the gun was obtained....and fail miserably to address the fact that the CRIME was ILLEGAL to start with. If I'm to be shot down in the street, I couldn't care less whether the guy stole the firearm, bought it at Walmart, or inherited it from his grandfather.

I am not talking about the common criminal here. I have done research on where criminals typically obtain their firearms and I know that the vast majority is NOT through legal channels.

While I tend to dismiss much of the liberal media as biased rubbish, they claim that more than 75% of guns used in mass shootings were legally obtained. If you guys can find proof otherwise, I would love to see it.

 

[NavyVet1959]

Either you believe in the absoluteness of the 2nd Amendment as intended by the Founding Fathers or you are already well on your way down that slippery slope that will eventually lead to gun registration and confiscation.

I'm a Strict Constitutionalist. As such, I believe that EVERY gun "law" that came after the 2nd Amendment is blatantly unconstitutional since they violate the "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" clause. Maybe there are some people that I might prefer not be armed, but I will support their RIGHT to be, regardless of my personal distaste for that person, their history, or lifestyle.

Repeal NFA34... Repeal GCA68... That would be a good start...

The ATF is an unconstitutional branch of the government since their sole purpose is to INFRINGE upon our constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms.

 

[Winchster]

@Winchster,

Read the graph you posted. It says victims aged 12 and over. Also, your graph is at lest 4 years old.

That may well be true but show me where it matters. The truth is violent crime is going down with regard to guns.

Regarding the argument "Shall not be infringed", do you truly believe that means everything goes? When the constitution was ratified in 1791, flint-lock guns were still being used. The Colt revolver wasn't even invented for another 44 years. Fast forward to modern day weapons with high capacity magazines and fully automatic weapons. The destructive force is exponentially greater than what the founding fathers probably could have ever imagined. Do you honestly believe that fully automatic weapons should be readily available to anyone? What about explosive devices? Why not make nukes available to anyone if you don't want your rights infringed upon?

In short, yes. I believe they meant what they said when they used the words shall not.
Just as I believe they meant what they said in the first. "Congress shall make no law"
Well I can guarantee they didn't envision the Internet, so by your logic you have no right to free speech here. Nor any other right guaranteed by the constitution anywhere you are using our being affected by computers, modem electronics, transportation, etc. etc.

Oh, and what about children's rights? Should they not have the right to keep and bear arms since they are less capable of defending themselves against a full grown adult?

Children have the right to be protected, thus the reason for removing the ludicrous gun free zone crap we have now.

 

[stephen426]

By the way, Happy Father's Day to all the dads! I've got to go do some stuff with the family so I guess more debating later. Thank you guys for keeping this civil and for the (mostly) well thought out responses.

My purpose for this thread is not to "appease" the anti-gun lobby. I believe that the mass shootings should NOT be the norm and that we are NOT POWERLESS to reduce them. I know prevention may well be impossible, but a significant reduction would be a great start.

 

[dajowi]

The problem isn't necessarily with criminals. The problem is when a law abiding gun owner decides to use his gun(s) to commit criminal acts.

There is no law, no mechanism to prevent that.

 

[Hunter Customs]

I voted #1 on your survey as I'm a staunch supporter of the 2A., and do not support any type of compromise of the 2A.

That does not translate to me being hard hearted and having no concern for the children and adults being killed.

Back in my day right and wrong was taught at home and no amount of gun control laws will ever replace that, it may be best if we get back to those basics.

Best Regards
Bob Hunter
www.huntercustoms.com

 

[NavyVet1959]

The problem is that (as history has shown numerous times), any sort of compromise that we reach with the leftists is then just used by them as a new staring point to further take away our 2nd Amendment guaranteed rights. The time for compromise is over! We need to put THEM on the defensive for a change. Instead of letting them slowly nibble away at our rights, we need to take them back.

We can start by trying to repeal NFA34 and GCA68. The leftist will balk, so we'll "compromise" and agree to just unregulate suppressors.

Next year, try to repeal them again and then "compromise" and agree to just unregulate short barreled rifles and shotguns.

Each year, shoot for the moon, but settle for something a bit less. The main point is that we take back ground that the clueless idiots before us (including the NRA) allowed the leftists to take.

 

[40-82]

I voted against any gun control, but I will make one concession. Say a healthy adult chooses to appear in public without a concealed weapon, I would leave that to him and not charge him with a safety violation the way we would if he operated a motor vehicle without using his seat belts or a motorboat without life jackets on board.

When gun control people talk reasonable restrictions what they really mean is that they're talking political realities. They lie about not wanting total prohibition of firearms, and they're just trying to keep the issue alive by prohibiting something, figuring that if I often hunt with a single shot rifle that I won't fight too hard when they try to restrict extended magazines. Reasonable restrictions are important because even the most liberal contributors might balk at donating to organizations fighting for a total firearms ban because such a measure will pass nowhere in the United States in the immediate future, but they can hope that a restriction on a type of weapon or accessory that most shooters don't use has a chance of sneaking through while nobody is looking.

Same problem with competency tests, I might recognize that a given individual may lack either the character or the training to handle firearms safely and competently. My solution is to avoid him. If I accept that testing this kind of competency is within the government's purview, I have just surrendered all of my rights.

The ultimate difference between the two camps is that some people believe that they have individual rights; whereas, others believe that the power of government extends to anything that the government chooses to take an interest in.

Gun control makes sense from one point of view. If as mayor of New York, and high sovereign over the United States of America, if you were going to send one of your public health workers to take the sugary soft drink out of my hands wouldn't you want first to make sure that another agency had already relieved me of my guns, knives, and all other pointed tools?

 

[44 AMP]

What gun laws do you not see being enforced?

How about the laws where a prohibited person commits a crime when they try to purchase a firearm? For one.

Politicians claim "thousands" of denials, saying the system works, because of that, and implying they are personally responsible for the "good" that does, because they put the law in place.

But when confronted with the (verifiable) fact that out of those "thousands, only a handful of those people have been prosecuted, and (at the time) NONE had been convicted, from his own lips, our Vice President said,

"We don't have time for that..."

Or how about the "mandatory sentence" laws for committing a crime using a gun? They aren't really working, either. Why? Simply because criminals seldom actually face those charges in court.

They are being used, mostly, as bargaining chips. Often the deal is, dropping the gun charge for a guilty plea to the main charge.

SO, they do have an effect, BUT not the intended effect. I don't think a crook avoiding 10 years on a gun charge by pleading guilty to 3-5 for assault (or whatever) is what the people who created those laws had in mind.

Also the laws requiring "ballistic fingerprinting" (another made up BS term), or a fired case from the gun. Millions of dollars spent, hundreds of thousands of man hours that might have actually been used for something useful, wasted. And to date, not a single conviction as a result of all the effort and money.

Some places have abandoned these programs, finally admitting they were a waste of resources, but not all have..yet.

There are other examples, if you look.

Some of the laws simply do not do what they are claimed to do. Others are not being applied in a manner that allows them to do what they were intended to do. And others are simply not enforced at all, or with barely lip service.

If you can look past the slogans and emotions, you can see this is the case. Calling for more laws, seems, to me, like drilling holes in the bottom of a leaky boat, to let the water out...

 

[cryogenic419]

Honestly, I think there are far too many gun laws as is, the need for more just seems to be reaching for a solution which cannot be obtained through more legislation, I'll explain further in.

The background check system has been a hot topic in the last few years. I know this is going to be a broad stroke here but I think the system works in that it does block felons from buying a gun from a licensed gun dealer. Adding mental health data seems like a logical next step to make sure it is as thorough as can be, but I think the dilemma for a lot of people is this...what would be classified as a mental disqualifier? Would someone who's entire family was killed in a car crash and they are taking anti depressants and seeking therapy, even if they are only on the medication and getting therapy as a result of the horrible accident and in no way are a danger to anyone be put on the "no gun" list? If so, how long are they on it, is there any way to dispute being placed on that list in a timely manner. What about vets who are suffering from PTSD? Are they on that list forever? What about police officers who are in high stress environments everyday? If they seek any sort of counseling would that automatically put them on that "no gun" list? I think there are ALOT of questions that need answered before they just add a mental health disqualifier to the NICS system. I am not willing to give anyone a blank check to just add that to the NICS system and be told "we'll fill in the details later".

I don't think a safety class should be required, I do think that since we pay an excise tax on firearms and ammunition a voluntary safety class should be made available if one so chooses and paid for from the taxes that are collected from the sale of these items. If such a class were made available I think there would need to be a national standard curriculum on what is taught in the class. Would you mandate a parenting class before people are allowed to reproduce? A class before people are allowed to vote? There are some people who probably should not have children but it's their right to do so. I think its safe to say some people's poor parenting has done far more damage than me or my guns will ever cause.

You mention drivers licenses, perhaps I am just old school but I was raised that driving is not a right, it is a priviledge. I think concealed carry licenses should auto-renew the same as a drivers license. You could kill someone with your car while drunk with a pound of cocaine in the trunk, and after your jailtime has been served you can actually apply to get your drivers license back. Funny how the same forgiveness is not afforded to gun ownership.

Registration, another fiery topic in the last few years. With registration comes licensing correct? You mention that we have to register our cars and boats. Would guns be afforded the same treatment as a car, meaning I could go state to state with my firearms and not be subject to some of their laws. With a car, you can live in a state that does not require front license plates, travel into a state that does, but because your car is registered in a state that does not require them you are legal to drive around without a front plate. Would the same logic of "its legal in the state where it is registered" apply to guns as well. It would also trouble me that I would end up having to pay some sort of fee for registering anything to exercise my right. You can't charge folks to register to vote, if I remember correctly they call that a poll tax and its illegal. The same rule should apply to firearms if they were to start up some sort of registration scheme but lets be honest, we know that they would find some way around it just so they can dig a little deeper into our wallets. Perhaps I wouldn't be so against registration and a little more open to the idea if I knew that firearms would be given the same treatment as cars and boats. Licensing probably ties into this as well, just because the registration for a gun says it belongs to John Doe doesn't mean you are the John Doe it belongs to, do you have your firearms owners license proving you are the John Doe it belongs to. Again I am troubled at the amount of hoops I would have to jump through to exercise my rights. Perhaps if we were to apply the licensing aspect to exercising other rights I would feel a little more comfortable with this. No free speech without attending a special class and obtaining a special ID card stating you have completed said class. Showing ID at the voting booth so we can make sure you are who you say you are. It sounds reasonable to me.

Open carry. I think some of these folks are doing it just to get attention. I get it, but at the same time I think they are coming across as "extremists" which usually gets a lot of negative attention. If they just went about their day with a gun openly carried I don't think it would be an issue. Its when 20 of them decide to go get breakfast at a Dennys with AR's across their backs, it freaks people out. Yes it's legal, but its freaking people out and perhaps isn't the best way to get your point across.

I mentioned in the beginning about too many gun laws as is. Politicians and anti gun groups feel the answer to so many of the problems out there is more laws. We have laws out there right now which are not being aggressively enforced, ok to hell with aggressively enforced, there are laws just plain out not being enforced at all. We have jail systems that are overcrowded, court systems which hand out lightweight sentences for violent crimes. Then everybody scratches their heads and wonder why things are getting so out of hand. People who should be in prison are wandering the streets, they've seen firsthand that there really are no consequences to their actions. If there are no consequences, whats to stop them from doing whatever they want.

I'm in no way advocating turning things into a police state at all, nor am I advocating locking people up just because they spit on the sidewalk. How about we find a way to deal with violent criminals that gets them off the streets. The quick and easy answer is more prisons so that courts can actually give out sentences with some teeth. Unfortunately its not the fix all solution and it would not be long before the costs associated with this would eat us alive. We could build enough prisons to effectively house a million new criminals and it would not be long before those places would be at max capacity. I think deterrence is part of the solution. Not all criminals start out with big crimes. If the punishment for the smaller crimes had teeth and being imprisoned was a miserable experience would we see a reduction in repeat offenders? If word got out that we have the capacity to house prisoners and that if you commit the crime, you're doing the time and its not going to be a fun journey would that possibly make some folks think twice? I don't know the answer to that. In my head it seems logical, but I am also not of that mindset so I don't know how somebody who thinks its ok to rob a gas station would view it.

How does enforcing existing laws and the ability to effectively punish lawbreakers and criminals tie into no more gun laws. You can put out all the new laws you want, criminals will not follow that. Drugs are outlawed, yet the criminals never really seem to have issue getting what they want do they? If you ban those evil black rifles or deadly high capacity magazines, or put in place only 1 gun a year laws, or run background checks so deep that your little league baseball coach from 30 years ago gets a call asking if he thinks you should be allowed to own a gun, do you truly believe its going to make a difference to criminals? I think fixing the problems is a multi tiered approach. Background checks are already in place and if somebody can't pass the thing they aren't walking out of the gunshop with a firearm. Next is enforcement of laws. We don't need to pass anything...its already law. Its illegal to be a straw purchaser or knowingly sell firearms to a felon. How about we start there? Investigate the crimes, arrest the suspects involved. Next it goes to court where the judicial system sees the evidence and decides guilty or not guilty, and when needed hands out the sentences. Holy crap it might actually work, lord knows we've tried just about everything else and guess what, we already have these things in place, no need to pass new laws, no need to further burden law abiding folks with more rules and regulations because of the actions of a few bad apples. Seems people think that adding more rules and laws will fix the issue when a HUGE part of the problem is that we simply aren't following the ones that are already in place.

Sorry for such a long post, I know it seems to go on and on, but I've had a lot of coffee this morning.

 

[Tom Servo]

I'm sorry Tom, but if the spat of recent mass shootings is not enough proof for you, I don't know what would suffice.

Again, that's a cheap rhetorical tactic used by the other side. The fact that we've had a few heinous public shootings does not prove we need more restrictions on the law-abiding. It doesn't prove anything other than the fact that crazy people sometimes engage in mass shootings.

By that logic, a spate of DUI fatalities on the highways following Memorial Day weekend proves we need to lower speed limits and restrict automobile ownership.

I am not the anti-gun lobby. Do you feel that mass shootings are the norm and that we are powerless to prevent or reduce them?

More cheap, manipulative emotional rhetoric. The problem is, it's behind the curve. I've heard it already. Whether it starts with "I'm a gun owner, but..." or not, it's fairly transparent.

Law abiding gun owners didn't shoot those people. Law abiding gun owners didn't tell families and law enforcement to drop the ball. I have no obligation to do anything.

Even when gun owners do make a suggestion, it's derided as clueless and insulting if it involves anything besides restricting gun ownership. No thanks.

What gun laws do you not see being enforced?

The most common are straw purchase charges being pled out and dropped. It's supposed to be a ten-year felony. The defendants who do get convicted of it usually get probation for less than two years.

The same goes for felons in possession of firearms. The excuses are that the DA doesn't have the time, the jails are too full, or they have bigger fish to fry.

Ensuring that guns are properly and securely stored would have certainly prevented Lanza from gaining access to his mother's guns.

Really? "Certainly" is certainly a fuzzy word. What evidence do you have that Lanza certainly could not have breached whatever storage our imaginary law dictates? Bear in mind this is a person who was willing to kill his own mother, then go on to kill 20 children and himself. Tell me a steel lockbox would have stopped him. Go ahead.

I believe secured guns would have prevented Columbine as well.

You might want to do some better research on that. One of the guns used in the Columbine shooting was a pistol acquired through a straw purchase. The others were acquired by the girlfriend of one of the shooters. She actually became something of a celebrity on the gun-control circuit for a bit after that.

How many children bring guns to school and accidentally shoot other children because of unsecured guns?

Then go prosecute the parents of those kids for negligence. The law provides for that. Don't throw that blanket over all gun owners, because...

The problem is that police cannot go from home to home and ensure guns are securely stored.

Yeah, there it is. You are aware of the 4th Amendment, right? Or is the mission of gun control so righteous that little things like that can go out the window?

Oh, but it's for the children? Heard it. Try again.

 

[wogpotter]

The term "sensible" to the anti-gun crowd may be to ban everything, but let's not get caught up on semantics here.

Unfortunately semantics is the name of the game so we have to get involved.
I'll tell you what.

You itemize the full list of what you consider "reasonable" or "Sensible" & then I'll know what you are thinking so I can respond.

 

[Evan Thomas]

My purpose for this thread is not to "appease" the anti-gun lobby. I believe that the mass shootings should NOT be the norm and that we are NOT POWERLESS to reduce them. I know prevention may well be impossible, but a significant reduction would be a great start.

It's absurd to say that mass shootings are the norm. They are a tiny, tiny fraction of (theoretically) preventable deaths in this country, and the amount of energy and money spent on trying to find ways to prevent them could be far better spent.

From the CDC report on firearms violence released last year:

According to the Congressional Research Service, public mass shootings “have claimed 547 lives and led to an additional 476 injured victims” since 1983 (Bjelopera et al., 2013, pp. 7-8). Mass shootings are a highly visible and moving tragedy, but represent only a small fraction of total firearm-related violence. (p.31)​

Over 30 years, that averages to just over 18 deaths per year. The numbers vary widely from one year to another (as you'd expect when the totals are so small). While some studies suggest that the number of incidents per year is increasing (Active Shooter Events from 2000 to 2012), others show they've been relatively consistent over the last 30 to 40 years (Why Can't Anyone Agree How Many Mass Shootings There Have Been In 2013? ); this discrepancy is due largely to the fact that different authors have defined "mass shooting" in different ways. But no matter which set of data one looks at, the number of yearly deaths from mass shootings is very small compared to the overall number of murders, on the order of 1% of the total.

And compared to other causes of "excess mortality," mass shootings are a miniscule source: according to an article from Scientific American, recent studies show that deaths from medical mistakes in US hospitals total between 210,000 and 440,000 per year, which makes them the third leading cause of death in the US. Comparing the two, deaths from mass shootings are 0.001% to 0.003% of that number. (Yeah, that's thousandths of a percent.)

One wonders why Moms Demand Action isn't demanding action on that.

The whole issue is a howling waste of time and money.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

The start of making gun control "reasonable" is the repeal of every current law and regulation and reversal of every executive order related to firearms.
Then we can talk. Until then, we're already way past "reasonable".
Google "LawDog cake gun control"

 

[SHR970]

stephen426 I would like to point out as few things.

Regarding the argument "Shall not be infringed", do you truly believe that means everything goes? When the constitution was ratified in 1791, flint-lock guns were still being used. The Colt revolver wasn't even invented for another 44 years. Fast forward to modern day weapons with high capacity magazines and fully automatic weapons. The destructive force is exponentially greater than what the founding fathers probably could have ever imagined.

And newspapers were slow to print and distribute. The radio, television, and internet were far from even a dream. Now we have the ability to destroy a persons reputation internationally, nearly instantaneously, and permanently with them having little ability to clear their names as sensationally as they were destroyed. Yet when the subject of restrictions on the "press" are brought up (paparazzi laws as one example) the howl and cry makes the progun crowd seem like mutes. There is no "shall not be infringed" clause on the 1st Amendment nor any other of the BoR. Amazingly I can thinkl of few of the BoR that have been restricted as much as the 2nd. And funny how only in the 2nd so many of the populace and "our betters" think that The People does not refer to us the individual but rather the collective.

Do you honestly believe that fully automatic weapons should be readily available to anyone? What about explosive devices?

These things were commonly available to the general public. Full auto by mail order if you wanted it up until 1934. And the SCOTUS case used to uphold the NFA can be torn to shreds based on the majority opinion basing things on military usefulness and the current military limited issue weapons. I am referring to the short barreled shotgun.

Dynamite was still fairly available until the Oklahoma City incident for use in removing stumps and other legitimate uses. You could get it at the local farmers co-op.

Why not make nukes available to anyone if you don't want your rights infringed upon?

Now you are in the territory of needing Bill Gates levels of money to just afford one. The market place pretty well covers that. And the difference of making something like Ricin and weaponizing Ricin is also a matter of cost. Making mustard gas or one of many other like substances is not all that hard if you have some knowledge of chemistry. The chemicals needed are not really that hard to buy. But risk / reward handles that too. Since a variety of incidents have been brought up; how many people recall that in Columbine that the young men made and planted numerous bombs? Things would have been a lot worse if the bombs had gone off as per the plan.

Since we are going to the far side, how about artillery? Did you know that many of the cannon used by the Continental army were privately owned? Did you know that if you wanted one and could afford it that you too could own one unrestricted until the NFA? Did you know barring state laws, that you too can currently own a 20 mm cannon? Who needs a 20 mm Lahti anti tank gun? How about a 75 mm cannon? There are some functioning guns in current circulation. How about a tank? Yes I mean a functioning tank....there are more than a handful in private hands this very day. One gentleman in N.California has a rather extensive collection.

Oh, and what about children's rights? Should they not have the right to keep and bear arms since they are less capable of defending themselves against a full grown adult?

Easily into the 70's if not the 80's kids took guns to school in their vehicles to go hunting after school. Having "children" banned from having access to guns, child proofing laws, etc. are recent legislative contrivances.

stephen426: I do enjoy the thought you have brought to this discussion. Though I disagree with your premise; I have enjoyed reading the thought you have put into it. I have also enjoyed the thought that many responders have put into their points / counterpoints. An enjoyably civil discourse.