s/o - Abortion-Free Gun Control Thread

[8circles]

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. 

 

What is the penalty for gunowners who don't secure their weapons and they are stolen and used in crime?  In accidental shootings?

Concealed carry is NOT difficult get where I live.  Not by a longshot.  I have fellow homeschool mom friends who invited me to come with them to take the class & get a permit because "it's so easy, you might as well do it just in case"???!?!?!

Hunting license rules & regulations are not difficult for me, and from the number of hunters around here it doesn't seem like it's confusing for them, either.

Trigger locks are not mandated here.

 

I don't see many similarities at all.

[poppy]

What Gun Control Advocates Don't Understand About Gun Owners

 

That was all pretty predictable, actually.  It's partisan and anti-government regulation.  No kidding.

[Guest]

What Gun Control Advocates Don't Understand About Gun Owners

Good article, thanks!

[Guest]

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.

I agree that we need to do something. But when I look at everything proposed, I'm not sure if it would have stopped Sandy Hook or a terrorist determined to kill people.

 

And, today, there was a bomb threat at my child's school. What a f*cking world.

[8circles]

That was all pretty predictable, actually.  It's partisan and anti-government regulation.  No kidding.

 

Yeah, and I'm trying to figure out what it is I don't understand.... is this supposed to be news to me?

[Tanaqui]

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.

 

It's true as far as it goes that "hard cases make for bad law". However, given the sheer frequency of mass shootings in the US, that argument is weak. There's always going to be a sensational crisis. We can't keep twiddling our thumbs forever.

 

So if we didn't have airport security do you believe that we would be equally as safe?

 

Much of our airport security is security theater. So yes, I think we would be equally safe if they didn't make us take off our shoes and allowed us to bring liquids on board and so on. We might even be safer without the screening lines, because surely I'm not the only one who has realized that a terrorist could wreak a whole lot of havoc by blowing up the people waiting to go through the metal detector.

 

The Founding Fathers could not possibly have envisioned what things would be like today.

 

At least one of them (I'm thinking Jefferson...?) thought we should periodically throw out the constitution and write a new one to handle the changing customs.

 

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.

 

That was over a hundred years ago, and not terribly relevant to a conversation about their actions and politics today.

 

I refuse to call those who disagree with me and do things that I consider dangerous and foolish terrorists.

 

But you don't mind making a blanket statement that "jihadists" are "the enemy". I don't know exactly what the odds are of my getting caught up in violence perpetrated by Muslim extremists, but I know they're lower than the odds of being shot by a non-Muslim.

 

It isn't NRA members perpetrating crimes, violent and nonviolent alike.

 

Are we to take this as a statement that no member of the NRA commits crimes, ever? Is that actually what you are saying?

[Guest]

https://mises.org/blog/mistake-only-comparing-us-murder-rates-developed-countries

 

Good analysis.

 

This is just one nugget from the link - but a direct mention: the scatter plot data.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Arctic Mama

[TranquilMind]

I read an article this morning in the Guardian about proposed legislation that "[extends] FBI checks to every firearm sold and [bans] sale to individuals on terror watchlists".  This sounds like it should be acceptable to more-or-less all the posters on the previous thread.  Taking the quote at face value, it sounds like it would 1) attempt to sort good guys from bad guys through the background checks, and 2) ban sales to people who have been profiled as suspected bad guys.  It sounds like an attempt to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or likely criminals, while still allowing access to law-abiding citizens (who aren't on the no-fly list).  I know, though, that legislation does not always say what proponents sell it as saying.  So my question is - does anyone know the details of this legislation, and why legislators would vote against it? 

 

(I'd like to keep this about the legislation itself, and the pros and cons thereof, rather than the people or parties who are for or against it, so as to keep the discussion within board rules about politics.)

 

(I'll be out an about today; will read the thread this evening.)

Well, it hasn't helped to ban firearms to certain individuals. Criminals go around laws, they don't follow them!  I find this amazing that anyone thinks they are deterred. 

[SKL]

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.

 

Private car ownership is not necessary.  We could have the government handle all vehicular transportation.  Just like some people think the government should be the only ones having guns.  Oh, maybe if you jump through enough hoops and prove a need and pay lots of taxes, they might let you buy a little car.  Hey, that's how it works in some parts of the world.  You know that would reduce child vehicular deaths.  Where is the lobby for this reform?

 

Gun culture - I want to know how you define that, and whether you can link your definition of "gun culture" to the majority of gun murders in the USA.  I'll help you out.  The majority of gun murders occur in the inner city where there is no deer hunting.  Also many of those places have strict gun control laws.

 

[Katy]

There is no need to insult someone.  Stick to the topic and leave out the insults. 

 

If you hate a particular person, block them.  I can guarantee you flinging insults has never done a thing to change anyone's opinion.

[Tanaqui]

SKL, I would be thrilled to get all private cars off the streets. Thank you for suggesting it.

[SKL]

SKL, I would be thrilled to get all private cars off the streets. Thank you for suggesting it.

 

I knew there would be some takers, but I doubt you'll get the majority vote any time soon.  :)

 

[8circles]

Private car ownership is not necessary.  We could have the government handle all vehicular transportation.  Just like some people think the government should be the only ones having guns.  Oh, maybe if you jump through enough hoops and prove a need and pay lots of taxes, they might let you buy a little car.  Hey, that's how it works in some parts of the world.  You know that would reduce child vehicular deaths.  Where is the lobby for this reform?

 

Gun culture - I want to know how you define that, and whether you can link your definition of "gun culture" to the majority of gun murders in the USA.  I'll help you out.  The majority of gun murders occur in the inner city where there is no deer hunting.  Also many of those places have strict gun control laws.

 

 

Private car ownership is necessary FOR ME.  I understand gun ownership is necessary for some people as well - I've never advocated a civilian gun ban.  Gun ownership is not necessary for the vast majority of people I personally know who not only own guns but have their CC permit & use it.  Like I already said, I'm doing everything I can personally & politically to make cars less necessary.  I can't say that I know any pro-gun people who could say the same about guns.

 

I've discussed what I think contributes to our gun culture ad nauseum.  Feel free to go back and read it.  Pro-gun posters either ignore it or use it as a jumping-off point for talking about hearts & minds & then I hear crickets.

[Guest]

You're a bigger sucker than I'd have imagined, if you truly believe their biggest aim is to defend your right to have guns. They are there to increase sales of guns and ammo. Look at the history of the dickhead who presides over the NRA now. The NRA depends on unsuspecting, non-curious, bury your head in the sand people to pay their measles yearly fees while they continue their dangerou, greedy, behaviors. IMO, the NRA has blood on their hands.

That's both aggressive and rude of you.

 

https://mises.org/blog/mistake-only-comparing-us-murder-rates-developed-countries

 

My last contribution here is a reiteration of this link and the data. False premises lead to false conclusions.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Arctic Mama

[Tanaqui]

Arctic Mama, I addressed that argument in the last thread. I don't want to rewrite it, but I can link to it if you say you'll read it. (Kinda lazy right now, not sure I want to dig it up if nobody will read it.)

[JeanM]

That's both aggressive and rude of you.

 

https://mises.org/blog/mistake-only-comparing-us-murder-rates-developed-countries

 

My last contribution here is a reiteration of this link and the data. False premises lead to false conclusions.

 

Is your point in showing this link that our gun death rate is acceptable? That we have done everything possible and lowering our gun death rate is not achievable? Should we really say wow, our gun deaths are lower than those of Mexico so we're just fine?

 

Setting aside the data, I think (could be wrong here) that the majority of Americans think that the number of gun deaths (accidental/suicide/homicide) here is unacceptably high. The majority of Americans support some steps towards gun control - background checks for all gun purchases for example.

[SKL]

That's both aggressive and rude of you.

 

https://mises.org/blog/mistake-only-comparing-us-murder-rates-developed-countries

 

My last contribution here is a reiteration of this link and the data. False premises lead to false conclusions.

 

Yeah, and let's just be honest here.  A very high % of gun violence in the USA is perpetrated by members of minority groups who are not typically associated with the "gun culture" as I know it.  I know it's not PC to say it, but it is such a glaring fact.  Traditional gun culture does not cause (or approve) any of those shootings.

 

Gun culture can be linked to some shootings, yes.  But to suggest it is the root of the gun murder problem in our country is just way out there.

[Sneezyone]

"Gun culture" is the reason why guns are in the hands of urban street criminals. The lack of tracking, registration, sales data on the sources of guns makes it impossible to rid high crime communities of guns which are sold, just over the county/state line, in loosely regulated states/communities. A national solution is required. Well-meaning gun lovers are blocking the kinds of national policies that might actually control/stem the flow of weapons into those communities.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Sneezyone

[8circles]

Yeah, and let's just be honest here.  A very high % of gun violence in the USA is perpetrated by members of minority groups who are not typically associated with the "gun culture" as I know it.  I know it's not PC to say it, but it is such a glaring fact.  Traditional gun culture does not cause (or approve) any of those shootings.

 

Gun culture can be linked to some shootings, yes.  But to suggest it is the root of the gun murder problem in our country is just way out there.

 

They you don't understand or don't want to acknowledge what gun culture is.  I remember distinctly you being involved in this conversation before where gun culture as being discussed was explained in detail.  We aren't talking about gun culture from 50 years ago, but gun culture NOW.  There are no minority groups which are excluded from current gun culture. 

[8circles]

"Gun culture" is the reason why guns are in the hands of urban street criminals. The lack of tracking, registration, sales data on the sources of guns makes it impossible to rid high crime communities of guns which are sold, just over the county/state line, in loosely regulated states/communities. A national solution is required. Well-meaning gun lovers are blocking the kinds of national policies that might actually control/stem the flow of weapons into those communities.

 

Yes.  & I'm so tired of hearing about how certain regulations were implemented in a particular state & it didn't make a difference.  WE DON'T HAVE BORDERS BETWEEN STATES.  How effective do you think it could be?

[Murphy101]

Soooo what I'm hearing is...

 

We need borders between states.

[Guest]

I am a gun owner, so let me start with that. But I don't see how more or new gun laws - whether national or local - could prevent any of the violence that has been occurring. I live in Maryland. Gun ownership is heavily restrictive here. You need permits and licenses for everything but hunting rifles and there are registration laws and transfer laws if you buy a gun second-hand. There is background screening and police interviews to get a permit to carry. It is hard to have a handgun here.

 

Yet, our murder rate this year has climbed to an all-time high. There were violent riots in Baltimore. This breaks my heart! That is MY city! It may be a cliché to say, "only the criminals have guns," but it does seem true here.

 

I really don't know what the answer is. It doesn't bother me one jot that there are lots of hoops to jump to own a handgun here. There are lots of hoops to becoming a licensed young driver, too, but I am perfectly happy with that. But clearly there's a truth here that more laws do not stop or prevent gun-inflicted violence. At the heart of all violence lies rage and hatred and I don't see how you fix that with laws.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Soooo what I'm hearing is...

 

We need borders between states.

 

Really?  I heard stricter federal gun laws.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I am a gun owner, so let me start with that. But I don't see how more or new gun laws - whether national or local - could prevent any of the violence that has been occurring. I live in Maryland. Gun ownership is heavily restrictive here. You need permits and licenses for everything but hunting rifles and there are registration laws and transfer laws if you buy a gun second-hand. There is background screening and police interviews to get a permit to carry. It is hard to have a handgun here.

 

Yet, our murder rate this year has climbed to an all-time high. There were violent riots in Baltimore. This breaks my heart! That is MY city! It may be a cliché to say, "only the criminals have guns," but it does seem true here.

 

I really don't know what the answer is. It doesn't bother me one jot that there are lots of hoops to jump to own a handgun here. There are lots of hoops to becoming a licensed young driver, too, but I am perfectly happy with that. But clearly there's a truth here that more laws do not stop or prevent gun-inflicted violence. At the heart of all violence lies rage and hatred and I don't see how you fix that with laws.

Except while someone may jump through hoops in Maryland, a straw buyer in a neighboring state makes those laws less effective.

 

[Sneezyone]

I am a gun owner, so let me start with that. But I don't see how more or new gun laws - whether national or local - could prevent any of the violence that has been occurring. I live in Maryland. Gun ownership is heavily restrictive here. You need permits and licenses for everything but hunting rifles and there are registration laws and transfer laws if you buy a gun second-hand. There is background screening and police interviews to get a permit to carry. It is hard to have a handgun here.

 

Yet, our murder rate this year has climbed to an all-time high. There were violent riots in Baltimore. This breaks my heart! That is MY city! It may be a cliché to say, "only the criminals have guns," but it does seem true here.

 

I really don't know what the answer is. It doesn't bother me one jot that there are lots of hoops to jump to own a handgun here. There are lots of hoops to becoming a licensed young driver, too, but I am perfectly happy with that. But clearly there's a truth here that more laws do not stop or prevent gun-inflicted violence. At the heart of all violence lies rage and hatred and I don't see how you fix that with laws.

 

State laws can only do so much when a purchaser can go to VA and have easier access. They then drive right back to MD.

[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.

 

Apparently you missed my earlier reply to the bolded. I am back on my laptop now, so here is the link to the NRA website on the history of the NRA:

 

https://home.nra.org/about-the-nra/

"Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis," according to a magazine editorial written by Church.

After being granted a charter by the state of New York on November 17, 1871, the NRA was founded. Civil War Gen. Ambrose Burnside, who was also the former governor of Rhode Island and a U.S. senator, became the fledgling NRA's first president.

An important facet of the NRA's creation was the development of a practice ground. In 1872, with financial help from New York State, a site on Long Island, the Creed Farm, was purchased for the purpose of building a rifle range. Named Creedmoor, the range opened a year later, and it was there that the first annual matches were held."

 

I am very curious regarding the source of your claims.

Edited December 4, 2015 by ChocolateReignRemix

[Guest]

Except while someone may jump through hoops in Maryland, a straw buyer in a neighboring state makes those laws less effective.

 

I understand it. I'm not categorically opposed to federal laws, but I think federal law is a very difficult area to tread and has been since the ink was wet on The Constitution.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I understand it. I'm not categorically opposed to federal laws, but I think federal law is a very difficult area to tread and has been since the ink was wet on The Constitution.

 

Why?  Seriously, why?  We are a nation of 350 million+ people and 50 states (+ DC).  Why is it a difficult area to tread to pass legislation that addresses a serious national issue?

[8circles]

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.

 

I liked this post and agreed with all your suggestions.  

 

Soooo what I'm hearing is...

 

We need borders between states.

 

ANd then you post this & I think, what's your deal?  My comment about borderless states was obviously not a suggestion to have official border crossings between states but a statement of fact - of reality as we know it - why state-only regulations don't work well.  I don't understand what you hope to accomplish by making reasonable suggestions and then being obtuse with the people who agree with you.

[shinyhappypeople]

I am a gun owner, so let me start with that. But I don't see how more or new gun laws - whether national or local - could prevent any of the violence that has been occurring. I live in Maryland. Gun ownership is heavily restrictive here. You need permits and licenses for everything but hunting rifles and there are registration laws and transfer laws if you buy a gun second-hand. There is background screening and police interviews to get a permit to carry. It is hard to have a handgun here.

 

Yet, our murder rate this year has climbed to an all-time high. There were violent riots in Baltimore. This breaks my heart! That is MY city! It may be a cliché to say, "only the criminals have guns," but it does seem true here.

 

I really don't know what the answer is. It doesn't bother me one jot that there are lots of hoops to jump to own a handgun here. There are lots of hoops to becoming a licensed young driver, too, but I am perfectly happy with that. But clearly there's a truth here that more laws do not stop or prevent gun-inflicted violence. At the heart of all violence lies rage and hatred and I don't see how you fix that with laws.

 

Yeah, as I read about this issue (gun violence, gun legislation) the thought that kept popping into my head is, "What if it's not about the guns?"  I mean, the guns don't fire themselves.  What is it in our culture that has left so many people broken, violent, and willing to shoot another human being?  

 

 

 

 

[unsinkable]

Yeah, as I read about this issue (gun violence, gun legislation) the thought that kept popping into my head is, "What if it's not about the guns?" I mean, the guns don't fire themselves. What is it in our culture that has left so many people broken, violent, and willing to shoot another human being?

Or drive a car into a parade?

[Ausmumof3]

It seems so strange to me reading this thread that for the most part even those against gun control support some regulations and even these don't get through. Why if everyone supports some change does nothing get done at all?

 

Also I don't know how politics works in US why are candidates even allowed to accept large financial donations from interest groups anywhere? Surely that's a recipe for corruption and unfairness?

 

Honestly, for this particular shooting I doubt anything would have made much difference. If you are making pipe bombs etc, with possible terrorism links, gun regulation laws aren't going to stop you. But that's only one out of many many incidents. And yet people want to say - well it's not about gun control it's about terrorism.

 

Murphy101s list of regulations sound totally reasonable to me? What do the rest of you think of them? Would you get on board or do you support no change?

 

As far as people having rage and violence in their hearts - well murder has always existed. People have always been human. It's just that they now have the tools to do it so much more efficiently.

[unsinkable]

It seems so strange to me reading this thread that for the most part even those against gun control support some regulations and even these don't get through. Why if everyone supports some change does nothing get done at all?

 

Also I don't know how politics works in US why are candidates even allowed to accept large financial donations from interest groups anywhere? Surely that's a recipe for corruption and unfairness?

 

Honestly, for this particular shooting I doubt anything would have made much difference. If you are making pipe bombs etc, with possible terrorism links, gun regulation laws aren't going to stop you. But that's only one out of many many incidents. And yet people want to say - well it's not about gun control it's about terrorism.

 

Murphy101s list of regulations sound totally reasonable to me? What do the rest of you think of them? Would you get on board or do you support no change?

 

As far as people having rage and violence in their hearts - well murder has always existed. People have always been human. It's just that they now have the tools to do it so much more efficiently.

Some states do have some of the regulations listed. It is a state-by-state issue.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Yeah, as I read about this issue (gun violence, gun legislation) the thought that kept popping into my head is, "What if it's not about the guns?"  I mean, the guns don't fire themselves.  What is it in our culture that has left so many people broken, violent, and willing to shoot another human being?  

 

Do you really think there is that much of a difference between our culture and the UK and the rest of Europe?  Between us and Canada?

 

The biggest difference, and the one that stands out the most, is how we regulate firearms.

[Murphy101]

I liked this post and agreed with all your suggestions.

 

 

ANd then you post this & I think, what's your deal? My comment about borderless states was obviously not a suggestion to have official border crossings between states but a statement of fact - of reality as we know it - why state-only regulations don't work well. I don't understand what you hope to accomplish by making reasonable suggestions and then being obtuse with the people who agree with you.

Apparently sarcasm doesn't translate well.

 

I was not actually suggesting border states.

[Guest]

Why? Seriously, why? We are a nation of 350 million+ people and 50 states (+ DC). Why is it a difficult area to tread to pass legislation that addresses a serious national issue?

Because from the beginning of the formation of this nation, there was tension over what the states could decide for themselves vs. What the feds could mandate nation-wide.

 

Was it not a serious national issue whether or not to declare that no human being could be bought, sold and owned by another? It was serious, but "we" killed hundreds and thousands of our brothers because we could not agree over the role of the federal govt. vs. the states.

 

With that history in our foundation, it is never going to be easy to take such a large a culturally diverse mass of people and say this will be true for everybody here. I feel quite safe, generally, on my little semi-rural patch of land in a low-crime area. I have a gun but haven't had it out of the safe in a long while. But I know there are places and circumstances in which I could be living that would make me feel a lot safer by having a gun. IOW, it is just not that easy to drive everybody in this giant country to draw the same conclusions about obtaining a gun.

 

It is similar to when the legal drinking age was raised to 21. It was not easy to do. It has probably had a net benefit. But personally, I think it's stupid that a person can become a soldier, vote, marry, smoke, gamble, and go to college at 18, but is presumed unable to manage alcohol consumption until 21. I don't know the stats on how much of a benefit it has had, but obviously, young people still drink.

[Sneezyone]

Some states do have some of the regulations listed. It is a state-by-state issue.

 

We have a state by state response to a national issue...which isn't working. We need a national response to a national issue.

[Guest]

Yeah, as I read about this issue (gun violence, gun legislation) the thought that kept popping into my head is, "What if it's not about the guns?" I mean, the guns don't fire themselves. What is it in our culture that has left so many people broken, violent, and willing to shoot another human being?

I actually thought about this this morning, watching on the news. A road rager got out of his car, walked up to the car ahead of him and punch the driver through the window. Then the driver shot the aggressor. Both things are wrong here. Road rage is a terrible problem. I'm sure he never expected, though, that the driver he was about to punch had a gun handy.

 

The whole situation is just messed up.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Because from the beginning of the formation of this nation, there was tension over what the states could decide for themselves vs. What the feds could mandate nation-wide.

 

Was it not a serious national issue whether or not to declare that no human being could be bought, sold and owned by another? It was serious, but "we" killed hundreds and thousands of our brothers because we could not agree over the role of the federal govt. vs. the states.

 

With that history in our foundation, it is never going to be easy to take such a large a culturally diverse mass of people and say this will be true for everybody here. I feel quite safe, generally, on my little semi-rural patch of land in a low-crime area. I have a gun but haven't had it out of the safe in a long while. But I know there are places and circumstances in which I could be living that would make me feel a lot safer by having a gun. IOW, it is just not that easy to drive everybody in this giant country to draw the same conclusions about obtaining a gun.

 

It is similar to when the legal drinking age was raised to 21. It was not easy to do. It has probably had a net benefit. But personally, I think it's stupid that a person can become a soldier, vote, marry, smoke, gamble, and go to college at 18, but is presumed unable to manage alcohol consumption until 21. I don't know the stats on how much of a benefit it has had, but obviously, young people still drink.

 

http://report.nih.gov/nihfactsheets/ViewFactSheet.aspx?csid=24

 

"The number of alcohol-related traffic deaths among 16 to 20 year-olds in the U.S. decreased from 5,244 in 1982 to 1,987 in 2008 in large measure because of the legal drinking age of 21 and Zero Tolerance Laws."

 

Sometimes doing the right thing is hard.

 

I also have to say that sooner or later as a nation we will have to grow up and quit obsessing over states rights.

[Carol in Cal.]

What is the penalty for gunowners who don't secure their weapons and they are stolen and used in crime?  In accidental shootings?

Concealed carry is NOT difficult get where I live.  Not by a longshot.  I have fellow homeschool mom friends who invited me to come with them to take the class & get a permit because "it's so easy, you might as well do it just in case"???!?!?!

Hunting license rules & regulations are not difficult for me, and from the number of hunters around here it doesn't seem like it's confusing for them, either.

Trigger locks are not mandated here.

 

I don't see many similarities at all.

Well obviously you need to move to California.

[Carol in Cal.]

Do you really think there is that much of a difference between our culture and the UK and the rest of Europe?  Between us and Canada?

 

The biggest difference, and the one that stands out the most, is how we regulate firearms.

I think that there are HUGE differences between our culture and that of Western Europe and Canada, and I entirely disagree with the idea that the biggest one is how we regulate firearms. 

[Katy]

Why?  Seriously, why?  We are a nation of 350 million+ people and 50 states (+ DC).  Why is it a difficult area to tread to pass legislation that addresses a serious national issue?

 

Because the need for a gun in rural Louisiana is worlds apart from suburban Connecticut.  Because the need for one in the Colorado Rockies is worlds apart from just outside Denver.

 

Yeah, as I read about this issue (gun violence, gun legislation) the thought that kept popping into my head is, "What if it's not about the guns?"  I mean, the guns don't fire themselves.  What is it in our culture that has left so many people broken, violent, and willing to shoot another human being?  

 

What makes you think it's only our culture?  We might use the weapons we have access to, but violence is worldwide.  Murder rates are low in the US, especially if you subtract gang war numbers.

 

Do you really think there is that much of a difference between our culture and the UK and the rest of Europe?  Between us and Canada?

 

The biggest difference, and the one that stands out the most, is how we regulate firearms.

 

I think the biggest difference is how we were founded.  Guns are an intergral part of our history.

 

We have a state by state response to a national issue...which isn't working. We need a national response to a national issue.

 

National responses go nowhere because what is best for each state varies on the state.  If you live in a place where it takes hours to get police response you have a higher need for firearms.  You just do.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I think that there are HUGE differences between our culture and that of Western Europe and Canada, and I entirely disagree with the idea that the biggest one is how we regulate firearms. 

 

I disagree.  There is nothing more fundamentally violent about Americans.  The major difference is we can kill each other more easily.

 

But hey, if it is just a "hearts and minds" issue like some keep saying we don't have to actually do anything.

[8circles]

Well obviously you need to move to California.

 

Right.  So if it's working for you, to hell with the rest of the country.  Thanks.

[Sneezyone]

This is not about what is best for each freaking state. We have a NATIONAL crisis of epic proportions of people shooting others, both on accident and on purpose. It requires a national response because the problem is affecting the NATIONAL welfare, our NATIONAL psyche, our NATIONAL security. Nowhere did I say that the national response must include restricting all access to guns for self defense and hunting purposes. But you already know that.

[8circles]

Because the need for a gun in rural Louisiana is worlds apart from suburban Connecticut.  Because the need for one in the Colorado Rockies is worlds apart from just outside Denver.  (FYI, Colorado Rockies and Denver are in the same state so this doesn't have anything to do with federal vs state law)

 

 

...

 

 

National responses go nowhere because what is best for each state varies on the state.  If you live in a place where it takes hours to get police response you have a higher need for firearms.  You just do.

 

So.... lets go back to the suggestions that Martha made in this thread.  Which ones of those would be a hardship for people who have more of a need for guns?  Which suggestions has anyone made, aside from the few comments about banning all civilian guns which most people on all sides agree is not desirable, would not be appropriate? 

[Guest]

http://report.nih.gov/nihfactsheets/ViewFactSheet.aspx?csid=24

 

"The number of alcohol-related traffic deaths among 16 to 20 year-olds in the U.S. decreased from 5,244 in 1982 to 1,987 in 2008 in large measure because of the legal drinking age of 21 and Zero Tolerance Laws."

 

Sometimes doing the right thing is hard.

 

I also have to say that sooner or later as a nation we will have to grow up and quit obsessing over states rights.

But why include 16 year olds? Was it below age 18 anywhere nationally? I don't think it best to just go grab a quote to support one's views.

 

I'm not making an argument about the drinking age. It's the law now and I follow it. I was trying to illustrate that 21 as the drinking age for all people in this country is dopey.

 

Funnily enough, the European nations we're saying have such great restrictive gun laws are largely blasé about alcohol consumption. Culturally views come into play once again.

[Laura Corin]

 

 

 

I think the biggest difference is how we were founded. Guns are an intergral part of our history.

 

 

I tend to agree with you. Guns don't have the same totemic power in the UK. But that means that the US needs to work harder at finding solutions to the slaughter.

 

Scotland has a problem with alcohol, including with drink driving. Rather than throwing up its hands and just accepting this horror, Scotland introduced a lower alcohol limit for driving.

[TechWife]

Never mind, OT. Carry on! 

 

Edited December 4, 2015 by TechWife

[unsinkable]

I tend to agree with you. Guns don't have the same totemic power in the UK. But that means that the US needs to work harder at finding solutions to the slaughter.

 

Scotland has a problem with alcohol, including with drink driving. Rather than throwing up its hands and just accepting this horror, Scotland introduced a lower alcohol limit for driving.

That's an after the fact solution.

 

What did Scotland do to change the culture of drinking and the hearts and minds of those who over drink?