Gun Control — Can You Hear Me Now?

There are a few problems with this metaphor - here are a couple: 1. it is pretty easy to see the limits of laws and options regarding making an intersection safer Let's say laws pass requiring background checks for all sales at gun shows (which I support) and lets say a ban on so called 'assault weapons' and magazines greater than 10 rounds. Guess what, NONE of those would have made ANY impact on CT, VT, or Columbine shootings. So now, another school gets shot up with 30 people dead and the shooter used handguns with 10 round magazines. Everyone will be up in arms and what next? You see, the general public does is not thinking about gradually banning all guns. Some politicians probably are, but not John Q. Public. But they also are not thinking critically about the true impact of any of these measures. They just hear the talking heads crying about fully-automatic high power assault weapons. They have no idea that the .223 round is called a varmint round. They are not hearing the specifics to know that VT and Columbine and other shooters used handguns. The natural desire is to DO SOMETHING and it will be again if our only focus is on the weapon. We should be focusing instead on mental health and on eliminating the facade of 'gun free zones'. By continuing the silly fantasy of gun-free zones, we are ensuring - and even advertising - that there are scores of innocent people congregated together in single locations where none are legally armed. 2. making the wrong decision about this intersection does not impact ones ability to use vehicles in other places - under potentially life threatening circumstances All laws have unintended consequences. The limit of making poor choices for this intersection impact traffic at this intersection. And the death and injury totals are pretty easy to tabulate. The unintended consequences of poor gun laws impact the ability of citizens to defend against crime. It is easy to count how many people are killed and injured by guns each year. It is much much harder to count how many people are NOT killed, are NOT beaten senseless, are NOT raped each year because of access to firearms.

I agree with you. I don't want to take away people's guns. But, I see no reason for people to own some of the ones that have been doing most of the damage. I personally wish guns were never invented. But, almost everyone I know has at least one and I do have "go to firing range" on my Fifty before 50 list, although I have chickened out before and might chicken out again. There definitely needs to be some kind of stricter laws, although the criminals always have ways to circumvent the laws. . . . . . that's why they're criminals.

I myself don't know much about the issue, the analogy was great I'd have to agree in that I think most people don't know what to say or do, most of us are just sitting watching it all happen. I don't have any problems with people owning guns. My problem is the kinds of guns people buy. Why does someone need a weapon that is used by our soldiers, they don't even get to keep those, they have to check them in and out when using them. it's not like you can go deer hunting with something like that, so what's the point? Again, what do we do, what can we do? Will people ever come to an agreement? I'm not sure.

That is the funny part ... all the focus is on so called 'assault weapons' which are almost never used in crimes: http://washingtonexaminer.com/if-you-want-to-end-gun-deaths-dont-start-with-rifles/article/2516536#.UNOSLrb4-pF

So then... according to the article that YOU cited... Weapons like the AR-15 are ONLY used in massacres... Got it... Definitely a great reason not to ban them. (read sarcasm...)

I am not dancing around the point at all. Yes, if you work hard and ban a particular type of gun, you will reduce, by some degree, the availability of that gun for use in crimes. The greater impact would be to reduce the availability of that weapon for legal citizens in self defense situations. But it would have some small effect on the number of crimes in which the criminal uses that type of weapon. But the bottom line is that all of that effort would have a negligible impact on murder rates. And because criminals will still commit these acts with the weapons that are available, we will still have these tragic heart wrenching mass shootings and people will still want to DO SOMETHING. And thus it would be a slippery slope because the politicians present these types of measures as if they are real solutions. I am not saying we would slide all the way to the bottom, but the momentum would be to ban the next gun used in the next massacre. I mentioned I support background checks for all table at gun shows. I think that is generally a good idea. But I don't kid myself to think that it would make any measurable difference on crime. I support efforts to beef-up the NICS, especially in regards to improving a linking of mental health status. Great care would have to be taken, however, to insure that privacy and abuse concerns are addressed. We would need collaboration with mental health professionals to figure out the best ways to do this. I would not endorse any efforts to register guns or gun owners. There is far far too much potential for abuse with very little to be gained. Canada scrapped their gun registration program after realizing the cost was very high and didn't produce any measurable results. And, after 50+ years of gun registration in Hawaii (an island), police cannot point to a single crime that has been solved from it. I do support licencing requirements for concealed carry in public. Many on my side do not - seeking rather what is commonly called constitutional carry. While I acknowledge licensing has a very low impact on crime, I do think the intentionality of the process as well as the education help reduce accidents and reinforce knowledge of deadly force laws. Mod kits, magazine size, nearly all discussions about hardware are, in my view, distractions. All of those proposals have a huge impact on law abiding people and very very minimal impact on the problems at hand. So, of all the things you mentioned above, I see efforts to address mental health issues as being the most effective. ----- But that is the thing. Those are all proposals being put out by the left and the right is chastised for not being willing to talk about them. But the proposals that could actually make a difference (have proven to make a difference) that are put out by the right and not worthy of discussion. Top among them is elimination of 'gun-free zones' - especially schools. Bring this topic up and the cry is immediate and loud. But it is an emotional reaction and not a logical reaction. Nobody is wanting to turn teachers into first responders, but they are already defenders of last resort, aren't they? Nobody is wanting to arm any teacher who had not already made this decision in their own life. That would indeed be detrimental. But I can see no reason to continue to deny people, who already have the blessing of the State and who we already trust to teach our children, the ability to defend themselves and our children as a last resort. I do find it fascinating that the State already places trust in vetted citizens to carry everywhere else they go. They can be at the movies, a restaurant, the grocery store, the church, and even at the park with scores of children. But the moment they cross the arbitrary boundary of a school campus – that trust evaporates. I know that only a small percentage of teachers would chose to do so - so the odds that a madman would target that particular classroom are very low. But what we are doing now is ensuring - and even advertising - that there are scores of innocent people congregated together in single locations where none are legally armed. Continuing that is madness. Let's stop advertising that there are locations where innocent people can be easily killed at will. Every single mass shooting in recent history, except for Tuscon, has occurred in a location where citizens were banned from carrying guns. The Aurora shooter had seven movie theaters within 20 miles of his home. He did not pick the closest one to his home nor the largest one. He managed to target the only one that banned otherwise legal customers from carrying weapons for protection. We do not know for certain that this impacted his choice of theater but I can no longer believe that it is an unhappy coincidence that nearly all of these mass shootings occur where guns are prohibited. But the emotional imagery of such a suggestion is too big for some people to wrap their head around. So we don't actually talk about all possible solutions. Just the ones that limit the citizen the most and that, arguable, would have the least impact on the issue.

You're still dancing around the point I'm trying to make... As far as weapons that are banned go... They never show up in these incidents. I'm not even for banning all guns, I just want a rational discussion that concedes, YES... The laws on the books work to some degree (as far as keeping "those" weapons off the street). Obviously there are professional criminals that will get a hold of and utilize some of these weapons, but generally speaking they are not in use for most crimes committed using guns. I want the left and the right to concede that we're both wanting the same thing... Safety for those that are killed/injured in gun attacks. The problem always comes down to (and I include myself in this...) No one is willing to bend, even an inch, to concede that the other side makes a valid point. I keep arguing my point of view because you refuse to back down and vice versa... But, like I said, in the end we are after the same result (including not banning all weapons). It is simply a matter of where that line needs to be drawn, what restrictions will be put in place to better regulate gun owners and what are the best methods to deal with the situation that we obviously have to deal with which is gun violence. We have talked about the slippery slope that can take place and lead to a complete gun ban, but I don't believe that would happen (personally). The fact is, we already have laws on the books to regulate arms and gun control. For the most part, they seem to work. All I would ask is that some small concessions be made on both sides, in order to protect the innocent, that would be no brainers. I mean, would you oppose better regulation and tracking methods for people buying guns? Would you oppose banning any sales of modification kits? What is the clip size that would need to be available for these weapons? What kind of mental health precautions could we take to ensure that mentally unstable people (as well as criminals), don't end up with guns? I don't know the answers and neither do you. We have VERY strong opinions and I think that the point of this post is that we should be trying to find a common ground. As I said, I am just as guilty as anyone for being bull-headed about my opinions, but there is a part of me that wants to find a way to come to some type of rational discussion/compromise.

Well, I would actually disagree that fully automatic weapons would have made the carnage worse. Automatic weapons are very difficult to control and very inefficient. They are primarily used in the military for laying down suppression fire from an established fortified position. My would actually predict that less lives would have been lost as he would have chewed through his ammunition very very quickly. And the argument is that criminals will find a way to get guns - which is true. The argument is not that criminals will find a way to get a specific type of gun.

I understand that there are "other" weapons that could have been used. The fact remains, these guns that they use are the quickest and easiest way for them to kill people. If they would have used a pistol or a shotgun, it would have taken them a bit longer which could have saved lives. Let me ask this though... Why don't we see automatic weapons in these shootings? The pro-gun groupies always cite the fact that criminals will "find a way" to get guns if they are banned... So, where are all of the automatic weapon mass shootings? I'm sure that if they had been readily available to this kid, the situation would have been much, much worse!

Sure. Except everyone of them that I can think of, the shooter also had other weapons: Aurora: had (and used) a shotgun and a pistol CT: had several handugns So, how exactly would a ban on so called 'assault weapons' stop mass shootings?