S/O Gun control

[Moxie]

Can we have a discussion without nastiness? If not, I'll turn this car around and we'll go straight home!

 

I know people who think the solution to mass shootings is to arm everyone. I know people who think the solution is the destruction of all guns. Neither of these are a real solution.

 

Is there a middle-of-the-road solution? Is there a way to preserve gun rights while protecting the citizens? Is the horse already out of the barn?? Without collecting all the guns, won't bad guys always be able to get their hands on them? What does effective gun control look like??

[Slache]

Awesome topic. Possibly against the rules because it's political. I'll be listening in. :)

[Butter]

I think it goes way farther than gun control.  Gun control alone will do nothing mainly because so many mass shootings are done with illegally obtained weapons so clearly laws didn't help there.  There's a deeper problem with our society in that people will commit a mass shooting, murdering innocent people for who knows what twisted reason.  To too many people, other humans aren't quite human.

[Guest]

Awesome topic. Possibly against the rules because it's political. I'll be listening in. :)

It doesn't have to be??

[Word Nerd]

Can we have a discussion without nastiness?

 

There's always a first time.

[Laura Corin]

Do you want to know what it is like in other countries?  I'm happy to talk about it, as in the past, but only if you think it's relevant.  I'm not keen on dealing with twenty replies saying, 'That would never work here' again.  Perhaps part of the courtesy in this discussion would be expressions of interest rather than dismissal.  You know the old brainstorming rules: all ideas are entertained?

[Slache]

It doesn't have to be??

I said possibly. I think it could be fine. I'm hoping so.

[DesertBlossom]

People willing to commit crimes (especially as heinous as mass murder) are also willing to illegally obtain their weapons. I don't know that more gun laws will help. If everyone was required to turn over their guns today, only the law-abiding citizens would do so. There would still be millions of illegal guns left on the street.  I think the problem has more to do with mental illness than anything.  

 

I read one article where this shooter had made comments about how these once obscure mass murderers are suddenly famous and all over the news. I do wonder if the obsessive reporting over these shootings is what fuels some people to do this-- they want to be famous. Even if they're dead.

[Stacia]

I feel like the horse is already out of the barn. And has a 20-mile head-start.

 

Personally, I think it would be reasonable to look at the UK & some other European countries as examples. Guns are much more highly regulated there. They are also other industrialized, Western countries with strong economies (so, similar to us). Look at & analyze their systems & try to find some way to implement similar restrictions.

 

I wish there were some way to reasonably approach this topic, but it usually leads to hysteria & finger-pointing, paranoia, & more -- a lot of it shoved out there by the strong gun lobby for public consumption. I know we're a capitalist society, but in this case, maybe we need to look beyond profit (a strong motivating factor behind the gun lobby) & look at what it's really costing our society (a whole lot of deaths, trauma, horror). Is that really what we want as a nation? Really?

 

[bettyandbob]

I think it goes way farther than gun control. Gun control alone will do nothing mainly because so many mass shootings are done with illegally obtained weapons so clearly laws didn't help there. There's a deeper problem with our society in that people will commit a mass shooting, murdering innocent people for who knows what twisted reason. To too many people, other humans aren't quite human.

Many of these weapons have been purchased legally. In my state gun show purchases are done without background checks. I believe that's how the VT shooter got his weapons. The Sandyhook guns were purchased legally. Lately when I see these stories there is a follow up on where the guns were obtained and most often it seems they were legal purchases.

 

I don't think a blanket statement can be made that mass shooters get weapons illegally.

[Farmgirl70]

I wish and hope we could have discussion about this without nastiness.  I wish we could listen (surrounding this issue and so many others) with respect and then ponder and think. I wish for creative solutions that work toward the common good. I am so dismayed by the polarization right now in our country and the lack of doing the hard work of listening, brainstorming, compromise, and problem solving. I wish we (as a country) had the humility to consider that we do not always have the best way and that looking at what works elsewhere is not "unpatriotic". I'm not directing this at anyone here, just grieving the happenings of the last day and tired of the perception that we can't do anything about it....

[Stacia]

People willing to commit crimes (especially as heinous as mass murder) are also willing to illegally obtain their weapons. I don't know that more gun laws will help. If everyone was required to turn over their guns today, only the law-abiding citizens would do so. There would still be millions of illegal guns left on the street.  I think the problem has more to do with mental illness than anything. 

 

Well, another issue is one that some current law enforcement folks don't agree w/ regulating guns & say that if new laws went into effect, they wouldn't enforce them anyway. So, then you've got more government employees (like the Kentucky clerk who had her media fame a few weeks ago) who refuse to follow the laws of the country.

 

So, I'm skeptical that, even if we did change the laws & regulate more, it would actually be enforced.

 

We're a nation of individuals. Sometimes our individuality is hurting us as a whole, I think.

 

[Ms.Ivy]

I completely understand the desire for gun control.  But I also understand the fear of being a sitting duck in a gun-free area, knowing that there are corrupt people who will happily make guns available to the highest bidder.  

 

It was very eye-opening for me when a leading California state Senator, an award-winning gun control advocate, was arrested for attempting to buy automatic firearms and missiles from a terrorist organization in the Philippines, and sell them in the US for a $2 million dollar deal.  

 

Of course then we have the whole problem with the guns being supplied to Mexican gangs by the ATF and then turning up being used in US murders.  So until we can deal seriously with crap like that, I don't think many will take kindly to being told to remain sitting ducks.  

[Annie G]

Do you want to know what it is like in other countries?  I'm happy to talk about it, as in the past, but only if you think it's relevant.  I'm not keen on dealing with twenty replies saying, 'That would never work here' again.  Perhaps part of the courtesy in this discussion would be expressions of interest rather than dismissal.  You know the old brainstorming rules: all ideas are entertained?

 

I am truly interested in understanding why it works in the UK but not in Chicago- which is my nearest big city, and plagued with crazy high gun crime despite the fact that Chicago has strict gun control.   

[Amira]

The argument that the bad guys will find ways to get guns even if the laws are stricter doesn't work for me at all.  We don't throw up our hands and drop all our traffic laws because some people drive drunk or speed.  We require child-proof lids on medication even though some people don't use them correctly.  We regulate who can buy alcohol and tobacco even though some young teenagers find ways around them. Seat belts are still required to be installed and used even if some people don't actually use them.  We have many, many laws that inconvenience law-abiding people in some way but I don't want to get rid of them because they also benefit me and everyone else.

 

I truly cannot understand why there is such resistance to increasing gun control in this country. I don't want people driving cars without licenses, registration, and insurance, even people who are good drivers and maintain their cars.  Similarly, I don't want people owning guns without comparable restrictions being put into place.  This would inconvenience gun owners, just like it's inconvenient to get your car's emissions or maintenance checked out and to pay money each year to register it with the state.  But those restrictions on what we can do with our cars have unquestionably made a huge difference in safety and pollution for our country. I still enjoy owning a car, driving it all over the country, and doing anything legal with it even though there are some inconveniences.  I think it is basically foolish to suggest that we can't possibly do the same with guns.

[Tsuga]

I think that the only solution is a middle-of-the-road solution. I am deeply frustrated by political tactics used to paint all middle-of-the-road solutions (such as, maybe not automatic assault rifles for individuals under the age of 21 without a special license?) as "banning guns". I am equally irritated by the ban-all-guns solutions not because "then only criminals will have guns" but because it's clearly not helpful. We know that people use guns for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with mass murder. Most guns would not even be effective in mass murder.

 

I think a greater emphasis on personal responsibility, safety, and rational, moderate gun ownership would go a lonnnng way.

 

I also think that this needs to be presented as complementary to the mental health, social structure, and equality programs.

 

I mean, yes, we need education, we need mental health services, we need a better social fabric, but until then, not having semi-automatics floating around on gun-sale Internet forums would be helpful. It's not an either-or scenario and I don't get why it's presented as such.

[DesertBlossom]

Many of these weapons have been purchased legally. In my state gun show purchases are done without background checks. I believe that's how the VT shooter got his weapons. The Sandyhook guns were purchased legally. Lately when I see these stories there is a follow up on where the guns were obtained and most often it seems they were legal purchases.

 

I don't think a blanket statement can be made that mass shooters get weapons illegally.

 

I know that some of these guns by mass shooters were obtained legally. But the laws required to prevent crazy people from obtaining guns would also prevent law-abiding citizens from obtaining guns. There's really no way to predict who *all* the crazies are before they commit a crime.  And while it would be nice to think we could just get rid of all the guns in this country and live happily ever after, that's NEVER EVER EVER going to happen.  Criminals will always have guns. Cartel members and terrorists will always have guns.  That is never going to go away and it's just going to get worse.  That's why Chicago is the way it is. A certain portion of society has broken down and criminals rule because they know law-abiding people can't defend themselves.

 

I agree that people should be able to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. But more than that, I think people have a right to defend their homes and families from criminals and crazy people. You don't have to have a gun. But I think law-abiding citizens have a right to one if they want.

[Tsuga]

I am truly interested in understanding why it works in the UK but not in Chicago- which is my nearest big city, and plagued with crazy high gun crime despite the fact that Chicago has strict gun control.   

 

Maybe if Chicago were an island with its own borders their ban would work better.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I am truly interested in understanding why it works in the UK but not in Chicago- which is my nearest big city, and plagued with crazy high gun crime despite the fact that Chicago has strict gun control.   

 

For starters, Chicago is surrounded by areas with less strict gun control standards and there aren't exactly border patrols or customs inspections as one enters the city.

 

We could implement strict gun control policies nationwide tomorrow and still have a issue with guns simply because we have 320+ million in private hands in our country.  When stricter gun control policies were put in place in the UK private ownership of firearms was rare.

[Joanne]

I think the gun culture of the US is so pervasive and entrenched and institutionalized that a reasonable, informed, introspective and productive conversation is impossible.

[SemiSweet]

I am truly interested in understanding why it works in the UK but not in Chicago- which is my nearest big city, and plagued with crazy high gun crime despite the fact that Chicago has strict gun control.

 

I would guess it's because Chicago isn't an island, drive an hour in just about any direction and you're somewhere else. The UK laws cover the whole country not just London.

 

Hawaii has some pretty strict gun laws and we also have the lowest gun death rate in the country. How you address the issue of guns that already exist in a place is harder than making new laws about future guns, if that makes sense, it's early and my English isn't working right now. :)

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I know that some of these guns by mass shooters were obtained legally. But the laws required to prevent crazy people from obtaining guns would also prevent law-abiding citizens from obtaining guns. There's really no way to predict who *all* the crazies are before they commit a crime.  And while it would be nice to think we could just get rid of all the guns in this country and live happily ever after, that's NEVER EVER EVER going to happen.  Criminals will always have guns. Cartel members and terrorists will always have guns.  That is never going to go away and it's just going to get worse.  That's why Chicago is the way it is. A certain portion of society has broken down and criminals rule because they know law-abiding people can't defend themselves.

 

I agree that people should be able to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. But more than that, I think people have a right to defend their homes and families from criminals and crazy people. You don't have to have a gun. But I think law-abiding citizens have a right to one if they want.

 

Yet criminals in the UK and other countries don't have guns nearly as frequently as they do in the United States.

 

And the violence in Chicago isn't because not enough people in the city have guns. Wow.

[poppy]

I am truly interested in understanding why it works in the UK but not in Chicago- which is my nearest big city, and plagued with crazy high gun crime despite the fact that Chicago has strict gun control.   

 

Because guns are very cheap and easy to buy outside city lines.  http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/29/us/where-50000-guns-in-chicago-came-from.html?_r=0

[6packofun]

I feel like the horse is already out of the barn. And has a 20-mile head-start.

 

Personally, I think it would be reasonable to look at the UK & some other European countries as examples. Guns are much more highly regulated there. They are also other industrialized, Western countries with strong economies (so, similar to us). Look at & analyze their systems & try to find some way to implement similar restrictions.

 

I wish there were some way to reasonably approach this topic, but it usually leads to hysteria & finger-pointing, paranoia, & more -- a lot of it shoved out there by the strong gun lobby for public consumption. I know we're a capitalist society, but in this case, maybe we need to look beyond profit (a strong motivating factor behind the gun lobby) & look at what it's really costing our society (a whole lot of deaths, trauma, horror). Is that really what we want as a nation? Really?

 

I was curious about the laws in the UK and found this article.  http://www.bbc.com/news/10220974 I'm not sure that Americans are as willing to have that many people involved in deciding if they can own a weapon. (" Independent referees provide confidential character statements in which they are expected to answer in detail about the applicant's mental state, home life and attitude towards guns.")  Who ARE these people?  I discovered that after the Sandy Hook tragedy, CT enacted some law that enables citizens to basically tattle on anyone they feel has a weapon but should NOT.  (It's not well-known, I don't think, even within the state...but is that a solution we want? Not sure.)

 

For us to try to imitate any other country that we believe has things so much better than we do, we'd have to drastically reduce the amount of guns that exist first and foremost, and I, personally, would prefer that those guns are taken from criminals and gang members in particular (since they tend to make up a HUGE chunk of the "mass shooting" stats if people take the time to look at how those stats are gathered).  But we KNOW those aren't the people from whom the most guns will be taken.  

 

I think we can have more gun laws, but I'd like to see them focus on removing assualt type weapons while making it very difficult to get those types of guns AND coordinating more regulations across state lines.  There needs to be better communication and much stricter rules about weapons moving from person to person and state to state.  Even then, we know that those who wish to get a gun, will.  Doesn't mean we sit by and do nothing, but I don't trust ANY panacea to drastically reduce gun violence.  There is a heart of the matter...and it's in the hearts of human beings and the breakdown of the family, as cliche as that sounds.

[Butter]

The Sandyhook guns were purchased legally.

 

By the shooter's mother.  It's a gray area.  He lived in her house, but they were not his guns.  Did he steal them to use them?  It depends.  A case could be made either way.  If they were locked up he could be accused of stealing them.  He was not licensed to possess those guns in any case.

 

Also, I didn't make a blanket statement that mass shooters get their weapons illegally.  I said so many did.  Mother Jones claims most are legally obtained, but they include the Sandy Hook shooter in the legally obtained category.  The guns used in the Columbine shooting were also legally obtained, but they were used by people underage and not licensed to carry those guns.  Supposedly the guns were obtained by people (mostly a girlfriend) who knew they were going to underage people making them purchased under false pretenses at the very least.

 

Gun show purchases without background checks make no sense.  I've never understood that loophole.  Private sales can be an issue, too.

[Ms.Ivy]

The argument that the bad guys will find ways to get guns even if the laws are stricter doesn't work for me at all.  We don't throw up our hands and drop all our traffic laws because some people drive drunk or speed.  We require child-proof lids on medication even though some people don't use them correctly.  We regulate who can buy alcohol and tobacco even though some young teenagers find ways around them. Seat belts are still required to be installed and used even if some people don't actually use them.  We have many, many laws that inconvenience law-abiding people in some way but I don't want to get rid of them because they also benefit me and everyone else.

 

I truly cannot understand why there is such resistance to increasing gun control in this country. I don't want people driving cars without licenses, registration, and insurance, even people who are good drivers and maintain their cars.  Similarly, I don't want people owning guns without comparable restrictions being put into place.  This would inconvenience gun owners, just like it's inconvenient to get your car's emissions or maintenance checked out and to pay money each year to register it with the state.  But those restrictions on what we can do with our cars have unquestionably made a huge difference in safety and pollution for our country. I still enjoy owning a car, driving it all over the country, and doing anything legal with it even though there are some inconveniences.  I think it is basically foolish to suggest that we can't possibly do the same with guns.

 

The reason the analogy with other control laws doesn't work is because you can only stop someone who is shooting by shooting them back.  In other words, guns control guns.  You don't stop someone from drinking and driving by only allowing the government to drink and drive.  So comparing substance control to gun control doesn't work.

[DesertBlossom]

The argument that the bad guys will find ways to get guns even if the laws are stricter doesn't work for me at all.  We don't throw up our hands and drop all our traffic laws because some people drive drunk or speed.  We require child-proof lids on medication even though some people don't use them correctly.  We regulate who can buy alcohol and tobacco even though some young teenagers find ways around them. Seat belts are still required to be installed and used even if some people don't actually use them.  We have many, many laws that inconvenience law-abiding people in some way but I don't want to get rid of them because they also benefit me and everyone else.

 

I truly cannot understand why there is such resistance to increasing gun control in this country. I don't want people driving cars without licenses, registration, and insurance, even people who are good drivers and maintain their cars.  Similarly, I don't want people owning guns without comparable restrictions being put into place.  This would inconvenience gun owners, just like it's inconvenient to get your car's emissions or maintenance checked out and to pay money each year to register it with the state.  But those restrictions on what we can do with our cars have unquestionably made a huge difference in safety and pollution for our country. I still enjoy owning a car, driving it all over the country, and doing anything legal with it even though there are some inconveniences.  I think it is basically foolish to suggest that we can't possibly do the same with guns.

 

I really don't think you can compare traffic laws or child-proof lids with gun laws. I think a better comparison are drug laws. Drugs are illegal. Drugs ruin lives and kill people. And you can get them everywhere. 

 

Criminals who have (and use) guns don't give a flying rat's behind what the laws are. Gun control won't do anything to stop the most violent criminals from killing people with guns they already have and/or obtained illegally. 

[Amira]

The reason the analogy with other control laws doesn't work is because you can only stop someone who is shooting by shooting them back.  In other words, guns control guns.  You don't stop someone from drinking and driving by only allowing the government to drink and drive.  So comparing substance control to gun control doesn't work.

 

I thought people used guns?  Aren't laws set up to help regulate people's actions?

[SKL]

If gun control has anything to do with it, the first step IMO is to make it illegal for mentally ill people to possess firearms.  The next step would be to evaluate whether some guns are by nature not the kinds of guns private individuals should own.  That would be the kinds of guns that can shoot many times, very rapidly, without reloading.

 

But I think gun ownership laws in our country are not the problem at all.  We have hundreds of millions of guns which are used for peaceful purposes.  It's like saying we should ban butcher knives because some crazy people and some mean people have used them to butcher people (and surely will again).  Cars kill a lot more people than guns, and we don't have the president getting up talking about car control every time people die in car accidents.  And there are a lot of other things that correlate highly with murders, but most of those are not politically correct to say let alone address.

 

Making this about gun rights is just a way to polarize individuals who would otherwise get along just fine.

 

I'm more concerned about why it seems more and more people think they want to hurt and kill others just for the fun of it.  How does that happen?  How can we address that?

[poppy]

I really don't think you can compare traffic laws or child-proof lids with gun laws. 

 

Criminals who have (and use) guns don't give a flying rat's behind what the laws are. Gun control won't do anything to stop the most violent criminals from killing people with guns they already have and/or obtained illegally. 

 

How about Adam Lanza's mother? 

[DesertBlossom]

How about Adam Lanza's mother? 

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at. 

[Carol in Cal.]

This will never happen, but I believe that all of these things would materially help:

 

1.  Stop sensationalizing/widely publicizing mass murders.

2.  Medically treat the mentally ill and protect the public from them.

3.  Ban realistic 'shooter' video games

4.  Glorify those who prevent or stop this

[Butter]

One thing I've always wondered... Are the gun control laws we already have on the books being enforced?  Do we need more laws or do we need to actually enforce the ones we already have?

[Carol in Cal.]

I think the gun culture of the US is so pervasive and entrenched and institutionalized that a reasonable, informed, introspective and productive conversation is impossible.

 

There are places where that is true.

 

I live in a place that is extremely opposite from this--not just 'not gun culture' but more 'anti-gun culture'.  We still have a lot of shooting deaths even though it's very uncommon here for people to have guns at all.

[Tsuga]

By the shooter's mother.  It's a gray area.  He lived in her house, but they were not his guns.  Did he steal them to use them?  It depends.  A case could be made either way.  If they were locked up he could be accused of stealing them.  He was not licensed to possess those guns in any case.

 

Also, I didn't make a blanket statement that mass shooters get their weapons illegally.  I said so many did.  Mother Jones claims most are legally obtained, but they include the Sandy Hook shooter in the legally obtained category.  The guns used in the Columbine shooting were also legally obtained, but they were used by people underage and not licensed to carry those guns.  Supposedly the guns were obtained by people (mostly a girlfriend) who knew they were going to underage people making them purchased under false pretenses at the very least.

 

Gun show purchases without background checks make no sense.  I've never understood that loophole.  Private sales can be an issue, too.

 

This is where moderate gun control would be sooo helpful.

 

How about, you are not allowed to loan out your gun?

 

Requiring people to have gun insurance which can't be transferred to others?

 

How about, nobody can own certain types of mass murder weapons, not so that they will disappear, but so that when someone has one, they can't say, "Oh I'm just a collector, don't mind me"? Instead you can take it. Will this bring the number of guns to zero? No, but it helps us regulate the movement of automatic weapons because we know they are illegal and it's not a lengthy process. This also helps in terms of racial profiling. Right now, an armed black man is assumed (can we just be honest here) to be a criminal; an armed white man, an activist. And in a sense, that is actually an accurate profile because black men are targeted to such an extent by the police that you'd have to be insane to have a gun on you in many circumstances, whereas plenty of white men in rural areas could concealed carry knowing that they would not be assumed to be a gang member. It's a vicious cycle.

 

How about, stricter age limits, and different rules for where guns are stored? For example, other than self-defense, why do people need to keep their guns in their home? Why not keep it at the range and then go get it when you need it? I've thought about improving my shooting but there is no way in HELL I would have a firearm in my home. My gun would be at a range where nobody would be likely to steal it.

 

Unless you're sleeping with a glock under your pillow to shoot intruders (you're safer running away or hiding), I don't get why non-relic guns need to be in your home.

 

Whether or not people should be allowed to carry out a death penalty without trial for property crimes is definitely another question, one I doubt I'll win.

[Ms.Ivy]

I thought people used guns?  Aren't laws set up to help regulate people's actions?

 

How are laws enforced?  With guns.  So if a murderous lawbreaker is using a gun, he's objectively put himself over all enforcement of the law and is no longer regulated by it until another gun is used against him. 

[SKL]

I wonder why nobody ever talks about the knife culture or the car culture in the USA.  Always the "gun culture."  The people I know who have guns use their cars and knives a lot more often than they use their guns.

[Annie G]

This will never happen, but I believe that all of these things would materially help:

 

1.  Stop sensationalizing/widely publicizing mass murders.

2.  Medically treat the mentally ill and protect the public from them.

3.  Ban realistic 'shooter' video games

4.  Glorify those who prevent or stop this

 

I can't disagree with any of your points, but think it might be hard to do both 1 and 4. Hard to glorify a hero without also publicizing what he did.  I guess it's possible but we have to change people's mindset away from wanting to know every little detail.  

 

I wish we could figure a way to change people's attitude. So many people have no self control now-folks get irate just because they have to stand in line at a store or their fast food order is wrong. And those are minor examples of lack of self control but how many guns are fired because people have no self control? Lots. It's just sad. 

[SemiSweet]

I think mental illness treatment is part of the problem in many ways, I read an article once that said that a disproportionate amount of people who had committed heinous crimes had taken mental health medications during their teen years. That's scary because we can't know which problem caused it, the fact that they may have been mentally unstable or the drugs caused damage in their brains, making them less capable of empathy.

 

On addressing mental health, that's clearly not possible until we have a single payer system, which is also highly politicized and unlikely with the current state of affairs.

[Joanne]

There are places where that is true.

 

I live in a place that is extremely opposite from this--not just 'not gun culture' but more 'anti-gun culture'.  We still have a lot of shooting deaths even though it's very uncommon here for people to have guns at all.

 

I hear you, but I still disagree. I used the word pervasive, but it is not strong enough. Americans are incapable of rational, informed discussions about guns.

 

I have written and erased may sentences about the NRA. Let me just try: if we had a healthier culture with regard to guns, we'd see the NRA more clearly and differently.

[DesertBlossom]

 

Unless you're sleeping with a glock under your pillow to shoot intruders (you're safer running away or hiding), I don't get why non-relic guns need to be in your home.

 

 

 

There are gun safes that keep them accessible to the gun owner, but not to anyone else. In fact, I'm pretty sure that large gun safes are even bolted to the floor so they can't be stolen and wheeled away. 

[SKL]

This is where moderate gun control would be sooo helpful.

 

How about, you are not allowed to loan out your gun?

 

Requiring people to have gun insurance which can't be transferred to others?

 

How about, nobody can own certain types of mass murder weapons...

 

How about, stricter age limits, and different rules for where guns are stored? For example, other than self-defense, why do people need to keep their guns in their home? Why not keep it at the range and then go get it when you need it? I've thought about improving my shooting but there is no way in HELL I would have a firearm in my home. My gun would be at a range where nobody would be likely to steal it.

 

Unless you're sleeping with a glock under your pillow to shoot intruders (you're safer running away or hiding), I don't get why non-relic guns need to be in your home.

 

I agree with most of this.  I do believe most Americans would, too.  The NRA doesn't really speak for most gun owners.  My dad is a life member of the NRA (membership purchased like 50 years ago) and he would agree with most of what you wrote above.

 

There are some people who, for various reasons, need to protect themselves against violence, and they should be allowed to carry provided they meet sensible requirements.  Well trained, good shot, mentally healthy, etc.  They should be allowed to cc, and I'm sure some % of the people I deal with daily are doing just that without anyone knowing.

 

I think it's OK to keep a gun at home if you are super careful about following safety protocols.  That said, I don't have one and am in no hurry to get one.  But my kids have been taught (and will continue to be taught) about gun safety in case they ever come across one.

[Word Nerd]

I don't think there's just one gun culture.

[kroe1]

Fifty percent of adults are now on some form of psychiatric medication. We are a society of mental illness. Mental illness is now diagnosed regularly in 3 year olds. Until we are no longer mentally incompetent, or at least quit making people think they are mentally incompetent, it is too early to discuss the weapon, in my opinion.

[Chess Dad]

Well, another issue is one that some current law enforcement folks don't agree w/ regulating guns & say that if new laws went into effect, they wouldn't enforce them anyway. So, then you've got more government employees (like the Kentucky clerk who had her media fame a few weeks ago) who refuse to follow the laws of the country.

 

So, I'm skeptical that, even if we did change the laws & regulate more, it would actually be enforced.

 

We're a nation of individuals. Sometimes our individuality is hurting us as a whole, I think.

 

 

My thoughts:

 

I've served my country in Iraq, Afghanistan and currently serve my community as a Narcotics Detective and I strongly appose banning guns.

 

I have sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution and find it alarming when citizens just want to give up their rights (and mine) so they can feel safer.

 

Gun Free Zones are a joke.  They only help the criminal find easy victims.  Chicago is a great example.

 

The answer? good question.  There are no easy answers.  As our society moves further from morals, excepts deviant behavior as the norm, the society as a whole will become more violent.  Maybe the answer is easy, instill morals, but that would be Politically Incorrect.  So expect the mass shooting to continue, but don't blame the guns.

 

:patriot:

[SKL]

I hear you, but I still disagree. I used the word pervasive, but it is not strong enough. Americans are incapable of rational, informed discussions about guns.

 

I have written and erased may sentences about the NRA. Let me just try: if we had a healthier culture with regard to guns, we'd see the NRA more clearly and differently.

 

I disagree with your use of the word "we" and the implication that all Americans who aren't anti-gun are in full agreement with the NRA.  I think the truth is very far from that.  But the truth isn't interesting, it's kind of boring, so nobody wants to talk about that.

 

[J-rap]

I believe more gun control laws can help the situation.  It won't eliminate it.  But it might make it harder for some people to obtain guns easily.   Also, the more guns in circulation, the more easily they are obtained illegally.  

 

I heard an interesting talk about how guns last for a long, long time.  They're not like a product that wears out after a generation.  There are very, very old guns in circulation that still work.  Why keep adding new ones to the mix? 

 

I don't have answers.  But it seems we need to start somewhere.

[Amira]

How are laws enforced?  With guns.  So if a murderous lawbreaker is using a gun, he's objectively put himself over all enforcement of the law and is no longer regulated by it until another gun is used against him. 

 

I disagree that a gun is the only way to stop the murderous lawbreaker, but often it is the typical response.  Even if I did agree, it still doesn't make sense to me to use that as an argument against gun control.  I believe we can regulate guns without violating anyone's constitutional rights and without unreasonably inconveniencing gun owners and that we must regulate them because the current system isn't working.

[Butter]

Fifty percent of adults are now on some form of psychiatric medication. We are a society of mental illness. Mental illness is now diagnosed regularly in 3 year olds. Until we are no longer mentally incompetent, or at least quit making people think they are mentally incompetent, it is too early to discuss the weapon, in my opinion.

 

This is part of what I mean by it going deeper than just gun control.  Something is majorly wrong in our society and it's not just guns!

[Chess Dad]

Fifty percent of adults are now on some form of psychiatric medication. We are a society of mental illness. Mental illness is now diagnosed regularly in 3 year olds. Until we are no longer mentally incompetent, or at least quit making people think they are mentally incompetent, it is too early to discuss the weapon, in my opinion.

:iagree:

 

This is a great point.  I wish I would have added it to my post.  :thumbup1: