s/o - Abortion-Free Gun Control Thread

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

They were reporting yesterday they were transferred legally.

Thank you, you are correct. I found a link citing an ATF report.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I wonder if a voluntary license- as in, apply for this license once, never submit to a background check again, would catch on.

A license like that would only work if tied into an updated database allowing it to be revoked if needed. While I think that is an excellent idea, I can see a significant number on the more extreme side refusing to take part in anything that allows their information to be tracked.

[Murphy101]

I would be for:

 

Only citizens being allowed to own, buy or have carry on US soil.

 

I would be be for any conviction of a federal crime (even if it's embezzlement) or any violent crime being denied ability to purchase or carry.

 

I would be for extensive background checks prior to every purchase or transfer. And again if they want to CC. I think this should be repeated every 5 years.

 

I would be for every gun purchase or transfer and every CC permit to require proof of having completed an exam, both written and practical, on gun safety and gun laws. This certification should be required to be retaken every 3-5 years.

 

I would be for a household notification. I think all adults in the household should have to have the certification and I think they should be able to privately note in some manner if they don't want the person they live with to own a gun and thus get the permit denied. For example I have a very close friend whose dh purchased a gun several years ago. She lost her mind over it and the gun was removed. There were no abuse or anything. She didn't want to have a gun in her home. I think people living under the same roof should have some say in whether one of them keeps a gun. I'm not sure how to make it private but this would possibly give those living with family who is abusive, mentally ill, or who just hate guns the ability to veto it coming into their house? Idk how it would work.

 

I think those purses for guns should be illegal. A gun should either be in a gun safe or on a body in a holster or in secure transport case. Not in something a kid might dig through or a teen mugger might snatch.

[Joker]

I heard this morning that those particular rifles were locally banned.

What I'm reading says the way they were originally sold was legal. They were then modified.

[Lady Florida.]

Let's ban guns the way we've banned heroin and crack and meth.  It's worked super-well on drugs to keep them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, such as myself--I wouldn't know where to buy meth if my life depended on it--but perhaps not so well for those who don't much at stake and/or are bound and determined to acquire drugs.

 

I'm not going to be participating on this thread any further, since it's clearly just a bunch of gun control advocates chiming in to agree with each other, so y'all have at it.  But it is ridiculous to say that banning guns is the answer to keeping them out of the hands of criminals and terrorists.

 

This post actually proved my point that facts don't matter. It's also a strawman and false comparison.

 

Yes, this is what I have often wondered as well!  The constitutional rights argument as sole reasoning always seemed weird to me, because its origin was during a time so very, very different than what we have now.  The Founding Fathers could not possibly have envisioned what things would be like today. 

 

Also, the "well-regulated militia" part of that amendment is ignored by the NRA and some (not all) anti-gun control advocates. Especially the well-regulated part.

 

I don't like guns. I'm one of those who believe "in a perfect world" citizens would not have access to guns. I'm also realistic, and I know where I live. A full ban will never happen and I would not support one, mostly because I know supporting it would be useless. But stricter regulations of of certain types of guns, and outright banning of other types is not unreasonable. Other free societies have done so and their citizens are better off for it. 

Edited December 4, 2015 by Lady Florida

[SKL]

Actually, yes. The NRA has an official position against mandating trigger locks.

 

Well that really shouldn't stop Congress, since as we all know, NRA doesn't speak for most Americans.  Plus, the NRA would look pretty stupid making a big public stink about child-safe trigger locks.

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Well that really shouldn't stop Congress, since as we all know, NRA doesn't speak for most Americans.  Plus, the NRA would look pretty stupid making a big public stink about child-safe trigger locks.

 

 

I would not put it past them.

 

They once called here and my husband answered.  Oh...that was not pretty.  LOL

[purplejackmama]

Yes, this is what I have often wondered as well! The constitutional rights argument as sole reasoning always seemed weird to me, because its origin was during a time so very, very different than what we have now. The Founding Fathers could not possibly have envisioned what things would be like today.

But couldn't this be said about many many things. For instance, the first amendment.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Well that really shouldn't stop Congress, since as we all know, NRA doesn't speak for most Americans. Plus, the NRA would look pretty stupid making a big public stink about child-safe trigger locks.

 

Lol yeah, the NRA has no power in Congress.

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

I would be for:

 

Only citizens being allowed to own, buy or have carry on US soil.

 

*Agree!

 

I would be be for any conviction of a federal crime (even if it's embezzlement) or any violent crime being denied ability to purchase or carry.

 

*I believe felons lose their gun rights already.

 

I would be for extensive background checks prior to every purchase or transfer. And again if they want to CC. I think this should be repeated every 5 years.

*I had to get both and be fingerprinted before I could get my CC permit. (In Virginia). Background checks are required to purchase firearms from FFL seller.

 

 

I would be for every gun purchase or transfer and every CC permit to require proof of having completed an exam, both written and practical, on gun safety and gun laws. This certification should be required to be retaken every 3-5 years.

*To get a CC, you have to sit through an approved gun-safety class.

 

I would be for a household notification. I think all adults in the household should have to have the certification and I think they should be able to privately note in some manner if they don't want the person they live with to own a gun and thus get the permit denied. For example I have a very close friend whose dh purchased a gun several years ago. She lost her mind over it and the gun was removed. There were no abuse or anything. She didn't want to have a gun in her home. I think people living under the same roof should have some say in whether one of them keeps a gun. I'm not sure how to make it private but this would possibly give those living with family who is abusive, mentally ill, or who just hate guns the ability to veto it coming into their house? Idk how it would work.

*Don't agree. think this has to be worked out within the family.

 

I think those purses for guns should be illegal. A gun should either be in a gun safe or on a body in a holster or in secure transport case. Not in something a kid might dig through or a teen mugger might snatch.

*Personally, I prefer holsters. Not sure how law enforcement would endorse the purses as a regular purse could easily be modified to holster a weapon.

[Katy]

A license like that would only work if tied into an updated database allowing it to be revoked if needed. While I think that is an excellent idea, I can see a significant number on the more extreme side refusing to take part in anything that allows their information to be tracked.

 

Well, that's why it would have to be voluntary, at least initially.  Like the quick screen line at the airport.

 

You get a photo id with a digital strip on the back, swipe it into a credit card machine, it says "Good" or "Hold."  If a buyer doesn't have it, doesn't want to show it, or there is a question about it, they are subjected to the same 3-day background check that is the current process.

[SKL]

Lol yeah, the NRA has no power in Congress.

 

What, are you advocating non-action because it might not solve the whole problem?

 

OK then, why not do these things quietly at the state or local level if the feds are that scared of the NRA?

 

Or maybe it's up to private non-political groups to just go out there and push the damn locks.  And private citizens to do the right thing for their own kids.  It's not like you can't go buy a trigger lock if you want one.

[Guest]

Aaand for some perspective: gun violence has declined since the 90's.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/?tid=sm_tw

[Katy]

Aaand for some perspective: gun violence has declined since the 90's.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/?tid=sm_tw

 

Thank you for not bringing up Freakonomics.  I thought I was going to have to remind someone of the reason for this thread.

[Guest]

I'm sick and tired of the NRA slamming. Do you know when the NRA was founded? 1871.

 

Do you know why they were founded? In response to white southerners trying to disarm freed blacks and victimize them. It was in response to the KKK.

 

Their history and current aims, then and now, have always been about the freedom of men to stand up and defend themselves. The people in the NRA who are paying member dues, like myself, are paying for a lobby to voice their concerns and stand up for the right to keep AND bear arms because we believe it is crucial for the prevention of tyranny. and as long as legislative efforts keep focusing on the individuals who are lawfully obtaining guns and don't enforce the current laws relating to straw buyers and such you're going to have a fight.

 

Maybe it's more comfortable to call the NRA the enemy instead of jihadists, but that doesn't mean you're right.

[Lady Florida.]

I'm sick and tired of the NRA slamming. Do you know when the NRA was founded? 1871.

 

Do you know why they were founded? In response to white southerners trying to disarm freed blacks and victimize them. It was in response to the KKK.

 

Their history and current aims, then and now, have always been about the freedom of men to stand up and defend themselves. The people in the NRA who are paying member dues, like myself, are paying for a lobby to voice their concerns and stand up for the right to keep AND bear arms because we believe it is crucial for the prevention of tyranny. and as long as legislative efforts keep focusing on the individuals who are lawfully obtaining guns and don't enforce the current laws relating to straw buyers and such you're going to have a fight.

 

Maybe it's more comfortable to call the NRA the enemy instead of jihadists, but that doesn't mean you're right.

 

Do you know that the NRA was once one of the biggest gun control advocates? 

 

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/14/the_nra_once_supported_gun_control/

 

http://www.alternet.org/suprising-unknown-history-nra

 

Do you also know how and when it changed from its original mission to the NRA we know today?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-nras-true-believers-converted-a-marksmanship-group-into-a-mighty-gun-lobby/2013/01/12/51c62288-59b9-11e2-88d0-c4cf65c3ad15_story.html

Edited December 4, 2015 by Lady Florida

[Guest]

Check the bias on those first sources.

 

I would contend that the increased focus on legislative efforts was a response to government overreach relating to firearms on a state by state level, not the other way around. Before the demands for individual permitting, registration, and restrictions on handling there was no need to lobby to maintain a right as codified as any nonviolent, non-inciting speech.

[Joanne]

I'm sick and tired of the NRA slamming. Do you know when the NRA was founded? 1871.

 

Do you know why they were founded? In response to white southerners trying to disarm freed blacks and victimize them. It was in response to the KKK.

 

Their history and current aims, then and now, have always been about the freedom of men to stand up and defend themselves. The people in the NRA who are paying member dues, like myself, are paying for a lobby to voice their concerns and stand up for the right to keep AND bear arms because we believe it is crucial for the prevention of tyranny. and as long as legislative efforts keep focusing on the individuals who are lawfully obtaining guns and don't enforce the current laws relating to straw buyers and such you're going to have a fight.

 

Maybe it's more comfortable to call the NRA the enemy instead of jihadists, but that doesn't mean you're right.

Nope. I consider thenorganizarion on the level of extreme Islam. I won't be quiet about it, either.

 

Their power, influence, and agenda is insane and absurd and responsible for mirder.

[Lady Florida.]

I'm aware of those sources but their history of the NRA is correct.

[Guest]

Nope. I consider thenorganizarion on the level of extreme Islam. I won't be quiet about it, either.

 

Their power, influence, and agenda is insane and absurd and responsible for mirder.

Then it is you who is responsible for declining discourse in this country, not me. I refuse to call those who disagree with me and do things that I consider dangerous and foolish terrorists. It's unfortunate you cannot summon the same respect for your fellow, law abiding citizens. It's as though you think we just don't love our neighbors and children as much as you. Ridiculous.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'm sick and tired of the NRA slamming. Do you know when the NRA was founded? 1871.

 

Do you know why they were founded? In response to white southerners trying to disarm freed blacks and victimize them. It was in response to the KKK.

 

Their history and current aims, then and now, have always been about the freedom of men to stand up and defend themselves. The people in the NRA who are paying member dues, like myself, are paying for a lobby to voice their concerns and stand up for the right to keep AND bear arms because we believe it is crucial for the prevention of tyranny. and as long as legislative efforts keep focusing on the individuals who are lawfully obtaining guns and don't enforce the current laws relating to straw buyers and such you're going to have a fight.

 

Maybe it's more comfortable to call the NRA the enemy instead of jihadists, but that doesn't mean you're right.

Do you fact check anything before you post it? Your version of the history of the NRA seemed a bit off, so I went to home.nra.org (on my phone and can't post a link).

 

According to the NRA's OWN HISTORY it was founded in 1871 by two Union veterans (Church and Wingate) in response to the lack of marksmanship displayed by Union troops during the Civil War. Their initial charter was granted in New York (which would be an odd place to battle the KKK in 1871), and the primary goal of the organization for many decades after its inception was to promote marksmanship.

 

Yes, I will continue to slam the NRA and its membership as long as they do their damndest to prevent this country from implementing real gun control.

 

And let me tell you something, it isn't the slope headed, tinfoil hat wearing brigade protecting this country from tyranny, and never had been.

[Guest]

Slope headed, tinfoil hat wearing brigade?

 

How small of you.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Slope headed, tinfoil hat wearing brigade?

 

How small of you.

I notice you ignored the falsehood I pointed out.

 

You may want to start taking a look at those who are aggressively parroting the NRA talking points. Start with the loons at infowars and work from there.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Then it is you who is responsible for declining discourse in this country, not me. I refuse to call those who disagree with me and do things that I consider dangerous and foolish terrorists. It's unfortunate you cannot summon the same respect for your fellow, law abiding citizens. It's as though you think we just don't love our neighbors and children as much as you. Ridiculous.

So Wayne LaPierre and the NRA weren't lowering the discourse when they sent out fundraising letters in the 90s referring to federal agents as "jack booted thugs"?

[Guest]

So Wayne LaPierre and the NRA weren't lowering the discourse when they sent out fundraising letters in the 90s referring to federal agents as "jack booted thugs"?

Do we really want to get into Ruby Ridge, Waco, and the context of those letters? I'm won't play that game. The NRA is a lawfully operating group and is the wrong target for you to be shooting at in a discussion of gun violence. It isn't NRA members perpetrating crimes, violent and nonviolent alike. We are not the enemy here and making us so is avoiding dealing with the real issues at play in shootings like SB.

[Pam in CT]

re: what we can learn from enhanced TSA / air travel precautions--

Hijackings were before reinforced cockpit doors.

 

Here's a list:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings

 

:iagree:

 

Reinforced cockpit doors were a tremendously good idea, and I do think they, more than tightened security line procedures for travelers, can be credited with reduced hijackings.

 

 

Reinforced doors accomplish some of what locked gun cabinets and child trigger locks do for guns.  Doesn't eliminate all risk, but contains certain types of risk.

[8circles]

Do we really want to get into Ruby Ridge, Waco, and the context of those letters? I'm won't play that game. The NRA is a lawfully operating group and is the wrong target for you to be shooting at in a discussion of gun violence. It isn't NRA members perpetrating crimes, violent and nonviolent alike. We are not the enemy here and making us so is avoiding dealing with the real issues at play in shootings like SB.

Wrong.

 

People who continue to advocate guns as problem-solvers, who preach about gun freedom without enough regulation to make any difference as the be-all, end-all, who talk about changing people's heart and minds without recognizing their own mind & heart poison, who read "gun-control" as "banning all guns", who talk about freedom being more important that innocent children's lives... They ARE the enemy. How free are you when you're constantly afraid or dead?

[Guest]

No. You're assuming the motives and intentions of those you disagree with and you're dead wrong.

 

An understanding of history and what it takes to maintain freedom from tyranny is not the same as fear and refusing to care for children. Conflating the two is easier but not right.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Arctic Mama

[8circles]

No. You're assuming the motives and intentions of those you disagree with and you're dead wrong.

 

No, I'm assuming nothing.  These are from posts right here on this board.  This thread and other recent ones.

[8circles]

No. You're assuming the motives and intentions of those you disagree with and you're dead wrong.

 

An understanding of history and what it takes to maintain freedom from tyranny is not the same as fear and refusing to care for children. Conflating the two is easier but not right.

 

I understand very well what it takes to maintain freedom from tyranny.  Tyranny does not always come from government.  We already are under tyranny.

 

We have had multiple people talk about carrying guns because they are afraid of being victims of crime.  No assumption made.

 

We have had multiple people - when discussing events like Sandy Hook - talk about freedom being more important than people's lives.  No assumption made.

 

Gun culture is our current tyranny.  

[Guest]

I'll repeat myself again - blaming law abiding, peaceful citizens and the NRA is why there will be no cessation to this violence. It is not those who respect the autonomy of persons and the rule of law who are murdering swaths of people.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I'll repeat myself again - blaming law abiding, peaceful citizens and the NRA is why there will be no cessation to this violence. It is not those who respect the autonomy of persons and the rule of law who are murdering swaths of people.

 

at least you separated peaceful citizens from the NRA

 

I don't see why people can't blame who they want.  I feel as if the NRA stands in the way of finding a solution.  They have a lot of money, power, and clout.  It seems perfectly reasonable to be leery of them. 

[SKL]

I wasn't afraid of our existing gun laws before these recent incidents, so why should I be afraid of them now?  What changed?

 

I'm not afraid at all, but if I were to fear anything, it would be cold-blooded murderers and terrorists in the US and abroad.  Let's be honest, the US gun laws have very little to do with whether or not people with a mind to commit terror will do so.

[SKL]

Are you willing to give up the right to drive, in order to prevent motor vehicle deaths?

 

Will you give up the right to have a swimming pool or to take your kids to swim?

 

If your answer to either of the above is no, does it mean you care more about your liberties than the lives of your kids?

[poppy]

Then it is you who is responsible for declining discourse in this country, not me. I refuse to call those who disagree with me and do things that I consider dangerous and foolish terrorists. It's unfortunate you cannot summon the same respect for your fellow, law abiding citizens. It's as though you think we just don't love our neighbors and children as much as you. Ridiculous.

 

I disagree with people all the time without calling them dangerous.  People who push policies that put my family in danger don't get that right.  Fighting the gun loophole, fighting trigger locks leads to dead kids. 

[JeanM]

Are you willing to give up the right to drive, in order to prevent motor vehicle deaths?

 

Will you give up the right to have a swimming pool or to take your kids to swim?

 

If your answer to either of the above is no, does it mean you care more about your liberties than the lives of your kids?

 

I'm not willing to give up the right to drive, but I am willing to take a test to get a driver's license before I can drive. And I'm willing to register my car and pay for insurance. And I'm willing for that information to be collected such that if a car is in an accident, they can trace it back to me via the registration.

 

I'm not willing to give up the right to have a swimming pool, but I am willing to put a fence around it. I am willing to restrict who is allowed in the pool and what supervision is required. And I'm willing to pay the extra home insurance cost, if necessary, to have the pool.

 

[Murphy101]

Nope. I consider thenorganizarion on the level of extreme Islam. I won't be quiet about it, either.

 

Their power, influence, and agenda is insane and absurd and responsible for mirder.

I feel the same about PP.

 

And yet I can and am usually open to discourse with people who strongly disagree with me about it.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Murphy101

[Katy]

Take all PP talk back to the other thread.  NOW.

[SKL]

I disagree with people all the time without calling them dangerous.  People who push policies that put my family in danger don't get that right.  Fighting the gun loophole, fighting trigger locks leads to dead kids. 

 

You are in charge of whether guns in your house have trigger locks on them, right?  So how is your family in danger because some other people don't want a trigger lock law?  I mean, sure, your kid could happen to go into another house where there happens to be an unlocked gun and engage in foolishness and get shot, but that is a pretty rare scenario.

[8circles]

Are you willing to give up the right to drive, in order to prevent motor vehicle deaths?

 

Will you give up the right to have a swimming pool or to take your kids to swim?

 

If your answer to either of the above is no, does it mean you care more about your liberties than the lives of your kids?

 

No, but I'm willing to have my car pass inspection, get a drivers license that needs periodic renewing, and pay for car insurance as well as follow laws about child safety seats.  I follow the rules of the road.  If I cause an accident, if I kill somebody, I would be prosecuted.  I support law enforcement officers patroling and stopping violations.  If there were a significant number of people purposely using a car as a weapon to kill or injure, I'd happily consider any new legislation to stop it.

 

I choose not to have a swimming pool because I'm not comfortable with the danger.  I support laws & enforcement of those laws requiring residential pools to be secure.  When we do swim, we follow the safety rules.  Nobody can drown me by their own choice to swim if I choose not to.  If there were a significant number of instances where people were hurt or killed by swimming pools used as a weapon (?) I'd happily consider any new legislation to stop it.,

 

Tell me again how these are similar to the current gun situation we have in this country?

[poppy]

You are in charge of whether guns in your house have trigger locks on them, right?  So how is your family in danger because some other people don't want a trigger lock law?  I mean, sure, your kid could happen to go into another house where there happens to be an unlocked gun and engage in foolishness and get shot, but that is a pretty rare scenario.

 

Adam Lanza.

 

 

Is that what "trigger locks" refers too? The technology that makes a gun only function if the owner is holding it? That the NRA is dead set against? Maybe I'm wrong. I'm not savvy about gun technology.  

Edited December 4, 2015 by poppy

[SKL]

No, but I'm willing to have my car pass inspection, get a drivers license that needs periodic renewing, and pay for car insurance as well as follow laws about child safety seats.  I follow the rules of the road.  If I cause an accident, if I kill somebody, I would be prosecuted.  I support law enforcement officers patroling and stopping violations.  If there were a significant number of people purposely using a car as a weapon to kill or injure, I'd happily consider any new legislation to stop it.

 

I choose not to have a swimming pool because I'm not comfortable with the danger.  I support laws & enforcement of those laws requiring residential pools to be secure.  When we do swim, we follow the safety rules.  Nobody can drown me by their own choice to swim if I choose not to.  If there were a significant number of instances where people were hurt or killed by swimming pools used as a weapon (?) I'd happily consider any new legislation to stop it.,

 

Tell me again how these are similar to the current gun situation we have in this country?

 

Even with all those laws and safeguards in place, thousands of children still die in cars and pools.  And yet people aren't willing to give up cars and pools.  What can that mean?

 

Just don't tell me that pushing for more gun regulations proves you love kids more than other people.  That's just an insult, divisive, and a way to prevent progress.  If you (general you) really want progress, start by respecting the people you will need to negotiate with.  A good start would be to acknowledge that we would all like to reduce risks of gun-related accdents and other tragedies.

[Murphy101]

*Personally, I prefer holsters. Not sure how law enforcement would endorse the purses as a regular purse could easily be modified to holster a weapon.

Not every state has those laws. So for clarity, I'm talking laws I would be okay with on both the state and the federal level. For example, in my state you have to have a background check and class for CC, but only a background check to buy one. I think both should require both.

 

And no, I know someone who did prison time for embezzlement and he is able to legally own a gun in my state. He might or might not be a danger, but I don't think he should have a gun regardless.

 

While I agree that personal gun ownership inside someone's house should be decided within the home, not every home situation makes that possible. If I knew for example that my husband had mental illness or a teen was suicidal - I'd want to be able to make sure they couldn't buy a gun while living at home. If my husband beat me somewhat regular, I'd be helpful if without additional danger to myself, I could deny his ability to purchase a gun. And I admit I'm not sure how this would work.

 

A gun in a purse is not even close to the same as a gun attached to a holster that is strapped to the body. So yes, I think if a person if found to have a kept a gun in their purse, most likely found bc it caused an easily preventable injury or death, they should suffer criminal neglect charges of some sort.

 

I'm open to discussion. I don't expect everyone to agree with everything I suggested. I'm just stating what I would be willing vote for and or support my reps doing.

[SKL]

Adam Lanza.

 

I'm not sure what he has to do with trigger locks.

 

[Murphy101]

Take all PP talk back to the other thread. NOW.

Alright. 😎

[TechWife]

Try something, but avoid doing so as an urgent (perhaps political) response to a sensational crisis.  Because laws passed on the heels of horrific incidents are often bad laws.  It's important to take the time to think through the far-reaching consequences of regulations.

 

How long, exactly, are people supposed to have to think about this? The shooting at Sandy Hook is coming up on it's third anniversary. People have, IMO, had plenty of time to think.

[8circles]

Even with all those laws and safeguards in place, thousands of children still die in cars and pools.  And yet people aren't willing to give up cars and pools.  What can that mean?

 

Just don't tell me that pushing for more gun regulations proves you love kids more than other people.  That's just an insult, divisive, and a way to prevent progress.  If you (general you) really want progress, start by respecting the people you will need to negotiate with.  A good start would be to acknowledge that we would all like to reduce risks of gun-related accdents and other tragedies.

 

Are you saying that guns are as necessary in our society as cars are?  

 

I definitely support moving towards more car-free societies.  I do what I can to reduce the amount of time we spend in the car.  I don't see that happening with the pro-gun crowd.  The very first thing pro-gun people say in these conversations is "don't take away my guns".

 

As far as pools go, I consider swimming an important life skill.  I am not aware of stricter pool regulations that could be done to prevent more drownings.  And like I said, nobody can drown me if they choose to swim & I don't.  

 

These are not the same as guns.  But you know that and just want to muddy the waters.  

 

The vast majority of people wanting more gun control do NOT want to ban guns.  I have never advocated for that.

 

Like I've been saying from the get-go - we need to change the GUN CULTURE in this country.  A gun is not a car or a pool - it is a deadly weapon that is used as such.  It's way more important to have under control that a car or a pool.  Yet both the cars and the pools are highly regulated.

[Carol in Cal.]

No, but I'm willing to have my car pass inspection, get a drivers license that needs periodic renewing, and pay for car insurance as well as follow laws about child safety seats.  I follow the rules of the road.  If I cause an accident, if I kill somebody, I would be prosecuted.  I support law enforcement officers patroling and stopping violations.  If there were a significant number of people purposely using a car as a weapon to kill or injure, I'd happily consider any new legislation to stop it.

 

I choose not to have a swimming pool because I'm not comfortable with the danger.  I support laws & enforcement of those laws requiring residential pools to be secure.  When we do swim, we follow the safety rules.  Nobody can drown me by their own choice to swim if I choose not to.  If there were a significant number of instances where people were hurt or killed by swimming pools used as a weapon (?) I'd happily consider any new legislation to stop it.,

 

Tell me again how these are similar to the current gun situation we have in this country?

Felons are not allowed to buy guns.

Assault weapons are illegal.

Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are prohibited by law.

Trigger locks are mandated.

Parents are encouraged by their baby and childhood books and magazines to inquire whether there are guns in the house before letting their kids visit, and not to allow their children to visit even houses where guns are demonstrably locked up and the keys secured elsewhere.

Concealed carry and open carry permits are so difficult to get that they might as well be illegal.

Hunting license rules are almost impossible to figure out.

Many specific handguns are banned from sale or import.

 

That's how those are similar to the current gun situation where I live.  Assuming that your question was genuine, and not snarky, which frankly didn't sound like it was the case. 

[Katy]

What Gun Control Advocates Don't Understand About Gun Owners

[Guest]

What's worse, Carol, is that there has been little demonstrable impact of most of those laws and regs on safety. That's one of the primary reasons people are fighting them federally - because they didn't work on a state level. Some are more effective or justifiable than others.

 

Le sigh.