OT: Another College Massacre this time in Oregon.

[stuporman]

More people die from alcohol related car accidents than guns... when will we end these tragedies? All vehicles in the US should have interlock alcohol monitoring devices built into the steering wheel so they won't run and can't be operated by anyone with a even trace of alcohol on their breath. The technology is already here but the lobbyists from the car manufacturers, alcohol industry, prison industry and Attorneys fought against it because they would lose profits and business.

[DickGrayson]

What are fighting over? Surely it wouldn't be about the right to bear arms, just a sensible system.

what system is this?

[J9Starks3]

This just happened in Tennessee.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/tennessee-boy-11-shoots-girl-8-argument-puppy-article-1.2385429

11-year-old Tennessee boy shoots 8-year-old girl over argument about puppy
BY JASON SILVERSTEIN NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Updated: Monday, October 5, 2015, 11:19 AM A A A

Here's another one.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/25/chad-pickering-shoots-teen_n_5621588.html

Chad Pickering Repeatedly Shoots Teen Over Lawnmower Dispute, Cops Say
The Huffington Post | By David Lohr
Email
Posted: 07/25/2014 3:31 pm EDT Updated: 07/25/2014 3:59 pm EDT

A former Minnesota corrections officer is accused of gunning down a teenager who asked him to stop trespassing on her property.

Chad Pickering, 40, of Eckles Township, faces one count of premeditated first-degree attempted murder. The alleged victim's name is not being released due to her age.

Sounds to me, at least in these cases, there was nothing that would have stopped these people...these are not similar situations to the mass shootings that most in these threads are referring to. Even if you were to completely ban all guns, what you may have done was just change the weapon used. These 2 cases could have easily been duplicated with another type of weapon when you have a targeted attack on a single individual. Would it have been better if the 11 year old killed an 8 year old with an aluminum bat? Or if the creepy 40 year old hacked up the 17 year old girl with a chainsaw?

[E-Balla]

Maybe Puerto Rico doesn't enforce their laws. I really can't speak on Puerto Rico as I'm not familiar with their problems.

But here's what happened in Connecticut, for example.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/06/12/gun-killings-fell-by-40-percent-after-connecticut-passed-this-law/

Gun killings fell by 40 percent after Connecticut passed this law
Resize Text Print Article Comments 905

By Jeff Guo
June 12, 2015


In the early ’90s, gang shootings gripped Connecticut. Bystanders, including a 7-year-old girl, were getting gunned down in drive-bys. “The state is becoming a shooting gallery, and the public wants action,” an editorial in the Hartford Courant said at the time.

So in the summer of 1994, lawmakers hustled through a gun control bill in a special session. They hoped to curb shootings by requiring people to get a purchasing license before buying a handgun. The state would issue these permits to people who passed a background check and a gun safety training course.

At the time, private citizens could freely buy and sell guns secondhand, even to those with criminal records. Connecticut’s law sought to regulate that market. Even private handgun sales would have to be reported to the state, and buyers would need to have a permit.

-more-

Gun homicides nationwide are down 49% since 94. If anything you can argue Connecticut (relative to the rest of the country) got worse.

EDIT: But I do think that law was good and that that is a good standard that should be utilized nationwide. Just saying its a terrible argument and usually in these type of threads you see terrible arguments being made for gun control when there's a lot of good ones mainly because anti gun people usually don't know much about guns (not you personally just speaking in general). Now I'll go back to avoiding this thread.

[Clyde_Style]

This just happened in Tennessee.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/tennessee-boy-11-shoots-girl-8-argument-puppy-article-1.2385429

11-year-old Tennessee boy shoots 8-year-old girl over argument about puppy
BY JASON SILVERSTEIN NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Updated: Monday, October 5, 2015, 11:19 AM A A A

Here's another one.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/25/chad-pickering-shoots-teen_n_5621588.html

Chad Pickering Repeatedly Shoots Teen Over Lawnmower Dispute, Cops Say
The Huffington Post | By David Lohr
Email
Posted: 07/25/2014 3:31 pm EDT Updated: 07/25/2014 3:59 pm EDT

A former Minnesota corrections officer is accused of gunning down a teenager who asked him to stop trespassing on her property.

Chad Pickering, 40, of Eckles Township, faces one count of premeditated first-degree attempted murder. The alleged victim's name is not being released due to her age.

Sounds to me, at least in these cases, there was nothing that would have stopped these people...these are not similar situations to the mass shootings that most in these threads are referring to. Even if you were to completely ban all guns, what you may have done was just change the weapon used. These 2 cases could have easily been duplicated with another type of weapon when you have a targeted attack on a single individual. Would it have been better if the 11 year old killed an 8 year old with an aluminum bat? Or if the creepy 40 year old hacked up the 17 year old girl with a chainsaw?

Not commenting on gun laws right now, but when you read those stories about a cold-blooded 11 year old, aside from the sadness of it, doesn't it cross your mind about how did this 11 year old have access to the shotgun?

These days, with all of the bad juju in the air and kids with any bad tendencies so easily influenced by what they see online and on TV, how could a parent not have everything locked up in a gun case?

Guns that are not locked up is inexcusable, but it happens constantly.

[Clyde_Style]

Maybe Puerto Rico doesn't enforce their laws. I really can't speak on Puerto Rico as I'm not familiar with their problems.

But here's what happened in Connecticut, for example.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/06/12/gun-killings-fell-by-40-percent-after-connecticut-passed-this-law/

Gun killings fell by 40 percent after Connecticut passed this law
Resize Text Print Article Comments 905

By Jeff Guo
June 12, 2015


In the early ’90s, gang shootings gripped Connecticut. Bystanders, including a 7-year-old girl, were getting gunned down in drive-bys. “The state is becoming a shooting gallery, and the public wants action,” an editorial in the Hartford Courant said at the time.

So in the summer of 1994, lawmakers hustled through a gun control bill in a special session. They hoped to curb shootings by requiring people to get a purchasing license before buying a handgun. The state would issue these permits to people who passed a background check and a gun safety training course.

At the time, private citizens could freely buy and sell guns secondhand, even to those with criminal records. Connecticut’s law sought to regulate that market. Even private handgun sales would have to be reported to the state, and buyers would need to have a permit.

-more-

Gun homicides nationwide are down 49% since 94. If anything you can argue Connecticut (relative to the rest of the country) got worse.

EDIT: But I do think that law was good and that that is a good standard that should be utilized nationwide. Just saying its a terrible argument and usually in these type of threads you see terrible arguments being made for gun control when there's a lot of good ones mainly because anti gun people usually don't know much about guns (not you personally just speaking in general). Now I'll go back to avoiding this thread.

I don't think you can assume anything like that. I grew up having shot rifles and shotguns when I was a kid. It was supervised. Knew plenty of people with guns in their houses. You can't live in the country and not be exposed to guns. Some people in the cities will either be exposed to guns or not at all, but it is mostly for different reasons.

What someone's beliefs about gun regulation are cannot be assumed to be based on their personal exposure to guns.

[E-Balla]

Gun homicides nationwide are down 49% since 94. If anything you can argue Connecticut (relative to the rest of the country) got worse.

EDIT: But I do think that law was good and that that is a good standard that should be utilized nationwide. Just saying its a terrible argument and usually in these type of threads you see terrible arguments being made for gun control when there's a lot of good ones mainly because anti gun people usually don't know much about guns (not you personally just speaking in general). Now I'll go back to avoiding this thread.

I don't think you can assume anything like that. I grew up having shot rifles and shotguns when I was a kid. It was supervised. Knew plenty of people with guns in their houses. You can't live in the country and not be exposed to guns. Some people in the cities will either be exposed to guns or not at all, but it is mostly for different reasons.

What someone's beliefs about gun regulation are cannot be assumed to be based on their personal exposure to guns.

Well I said anti gun not pro regulation. Most people wanting an all out gun ban ala England and Australia don't seem to know much about guns in my personal experience. It's the reason I started avoiding these types of threads. Wingo is cool though. We disagree but rarely is he flat out wrong.

[Clyde_Style]

Gun homicides nationwide are down 49% since 94. If anything you can argue Connecticut (relative to the rest of the country) got worse.

EDIT: But I do think that law was good and that that is a good standard that should be utilized nationwide. Just saying its a terrible argument and usually in these type of threads you see terrible arguments being made for gun control when there's a lot of good ones mainly because anti gun people usually don't know much about guns (not you personally just speaking in general). Now I'll go back to avoiding this thread.

I don't think you can assume anything like that. I grew up having shot rifles and shotguns when I was a kid. It was supervised. Knew plenty of people with guns in their houses. You can't live in the country and not be exposed to guns. Some people in the cities will either be exposed to guns or not at all, but it is mostly for different reasons.

What someone's beliefs about gun regulation are cannot be assumed to be based on their personal exposure to guns.

Well I said anti gun not pro regulation. Most people wanting an all out gun ban ala England and Australia don't seem to know much about guns in my personal experience. It's the reason I started avoiding these types of threads. Wingo is cool though. We disagree but rarely is he flat out wrong.

That's why I pushed in this thread to ask people to start saying what do you want to do?

Otherwise there is this reflex many of us are guilty of where we think we're taking a side when in fact many of us can find a pretty clear common ground around the agenda of better regulations and implementation of them.

Since America's historical basis was founded on revolution and the enshrinement of the right to bear arms, it is not ever going to be a good starting point or viable discourse to pose the situation as guns or no guns.

But there should be an obtainable voting majority that agrees on better laws.

For instance, has anyone in this thread who has scoffed at gun regulations come right out and said they either support the ownership of assault weapons or not? NOT THAT I CAN SEE.

I think a lot of people are just angry by default and it makes them unable to consider the situation clearly. If someone gets all tensed up and defensive whenever someone mentions revamping gun laws, then nothing comes of the conversation.

And if people really want to keep saying guns are not the problem, then what are they afraid of when it comes to better enforcement? If they are sane and complying with the laws and they can still own their gun, what is the problem here?

Instead, many derail the discussion by saying it is about mental illness and not guns. Well, do they want better laws or not? Lots of evasion going on here, because if we are going to debate this and get anywhere we need to frame the debate better.

And you frame the debate by asking to setting aside these various tangents first and asking about the laws themselves. Are they just fine the way they are? Do they believe in a patchwork system of laws? Do they believe a federal standard will improve the situation?

Yes, analyzing statistics are part of determining where you stand on those questions, but it would seem reasonable the basic inference that can be drawn from statistics is that good laws do have an effect. Particularizing the analytics past a certain point evades the broader question of unified laws, because it is a broad question for a big population. It is not something that can be cherry picked to death. Either you see that positive changes can be made or you disagree or you just don't care.

As far as I know, the rest of the world seems to address this as a national issue. Our confederacy of states is not working for this issue. When are people going to deal with this?

[Thugger HBC]

Clyde, not trying to minimize the situation, but in some southern states, shotguns can on the backseat of your vehicle in open view. Not sure if they can be loaded, but the gun itself certainly can be there.

[Clyde_Style]

Clyde, not trying to minimize the situation, but in some southern states, shotguns can on the backseat of your vehicle in open view. Not sure if they can be loaded, but the gun itself certainly can be there.

Yes. Not sure how you're applying that though.

A story about that:

One time I was driving cross-country with my girlfriend. We left Reno at 4 a.m. and drove Route 50, "America's Loneliest Highway" across Nevada with the plan to get to Ely and the Utah border by noon. It is empty land and the signs were full of bullet holes.

About 4/5ths of the way across I pulled over into a dirt road to nowhere and pointed the car back towards the highway and said I'd take a 20 minute nap.

When I woke up she said a pickup truck had pulled up to us, nose-to-nose, and some evil looking dude with a shotgun on his dashboard sat there almost the whole time I slept and stared her down.

She was afraid to wake me and as long as the man didn't put his hand to the gun she figured she'd wait it out. He pulled out and left maybe a minute or two before I woke up.

[J9Starks3]

Not commenting on gun laws right now, but when you read those stories about a cold-blooded 11 year old, aside from the sadness of it, doesn't it cross your mind about how did this 11 year old have access to the shotgun?

These days, with all of the bad juju in the air and kids with any bad tendencies so easily influenced by what they see online and on TV, how could a parent not have everything locked up in a gun case?

Guns that are not locked up is inexcusable, but it happens constantly.

Oh ok - yes you are totally right there... I think the harshest critics of something like the story of the 11 year old usually are (and should be) gun advocates. Having a gun, whether you agree that people should/shouldn't, is an incredible responsibility that nobody should take lightly. Anyone who would allow someone else, especially an 11 year old, to get hold of their gun deserves to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Without knowing all the details, if it is their fault that the gun got into the hands of an 11 year old due to neglect, I believe they should be charged with some form of murder.

[Thugger HBC]

Clyde, not trying to minimize the situation, but in some southern states, shotguns can on the backseat of your vehicle in open view. Not sure if they can be loaded, but the gun itself certainly can be there.

Yes. Not sure how you're applying that though.

A story about that:

One time I was driving cross-country with my girlfriend. We left Reno at 4 a.m. and drove Route 50, "America's Loneliest Highway" across Nevada with the plan to get to Ely and the Utah border by noon. It is empty land and the signs were full of bullet holes.

About 4/5ths of the way across I pulled over into a dirt road to nowhere and pointed the car back towards the highway and said I'd take a 20 minute nap.

When I woke up she said a pickup truck had pulled up to us, nose-to-nose, and some evil looking dude with a shotgun on his dashboard sat there almost the whole time I slept and stared her down.

She was afraid to wake me and as long as the man didn't put his hand to the gun she figured she'd wait it out. He pulled out and left maybe a minute or two before I woke up.

It was a reference to how the 11 year old could get access to a shot gun. probably saw it everyday in the backseat next to him. but as far as the topic goes, you wont get a debate about stiffening the laws, i agree there. I just dont know if its a national issue where one umbrella gets the right to govern all states in uniform, because I dont see how to carry that about. States are different as the should be.

Depending on the region, people have guns for various reasons, and they may have multiple guns to for those various reasons. If some type of system can keep peoples rights in tact while limiting the killers use of guns then I'm all for that.

But I dont see a way that can be achieved. I dont see any realistic way to prevent a killer from killing. Placing more guns in places that normally dont have that protection might give a person a second thought of his action, but the concept is preventing.

Limitation only limits the one who abides by the rule limiting them.

[Clyde_Style]

Clyde, not trying to minimize the situation, but in some southern states, shotguns can on the backseat of your vehicle in open view. Not sure if they can be loaded, but the gun itself certainly can be there.

Yes. Not sure how you're applying that though.

A story about that:

One time I was driving cross-country with my girlfriend. We left Reno at 4 a.m. and drove Route 50, "America's Loneliest Highway" across Nevada with the plan to get to Ely and the Utah border by noon. It is empty land and the signs were full of bullet holes.

About 4/5ths of the way across I pulled over into a dirt road to nowhere and pointed the car back towards the highway and said I'd take a 20 minute nap.

When I woke up she said a pickup truck had pulled up to us, nose-to-nose, and some evil looking dude with a shotgun on his dashboard sat there almost the whole time I slept and stared her down.

She was afraid to wake me and as long as the man didn't put his hand to the gun she figured she'd wait it out. He pulled out and left maybe a minute or two before I woke up.

It was a reference to how the 11 year old could get access to a shot gun. probably saw it everyday in the backseat next to him. but as far as the topic goes, you wont get a debate about stiffening the laws, i agree there. I just dont know if its a national issue where one umbrella gets the right to govern all states in uniform, because I dont see how to carry that about. States are different as the should be.

Depending on the region, people have guns for various reasons, and they may have multiple guns to for those various reasons. If some type of system can keep peoples rights in tact while limiting the killers use of guns then I'm all for that.

But I dont see a way that can be achieved. I dont see any realistic way to prevent a killer from killing. Placing more guns in places that normally dont have that protection might give a person a second thought of his action, but the concept is preventing.

Limitation only limits the one who abides by the rule limiting them.

Not sure if federalism can take effect on this issue, but I feel it would eliminate some forms of black market activity if gun shows were completely regulated like shops. Further, if a federal mandate was issued that every citizen has 12 months to register every gun they own and thereafter it is a crime to have or use an unregistered one, then you'd have the basis for a trackable system going forward. Yes, difficult to imagine it being implemented, but it would eventually thin out many instances of casual weapon access and lessen the chances of impulse usage. Lots of killing is impulsive. I agree you cannot protect against every methodical maniac, but they shouldn't be able to amass arsenals and rounds of bullets like they have done so easily in the past.

And lastly (I'm wearing out on this I confess), I believe change takes time and sometimes you need constraints first to induce long-term behaviorial change. Some would be kicking and screaming, but in the end if you have a society where you can still have a weapon if you dot your T's and cross you I's, then I don't care if some egos are bruised in the process. What I don't agree with is if someone suggests that amounts to a lot of hassle for what cannot be proven will be a predictable change for the better. And to that I say how can you believe it will get better the way things are? You have to try and sometimes when you take action the changes are profound. It would be generational, but it could be significant.

[Thugger HBC]

Good points and I want to try to touch them all.....

Not sure if federalism can take effect on this issue, but I feel it would eliminate some forms of black market activity if gun shows were completely regulated like shops.

Universal background checks would easily rectify this, although I wouldnt associate buying a gun from a private owner at a show with black market activity. Simple process, have a system on site to process background checks. this way if everything clears your rights are not impeded.

Further, if a federal mandate was issued that every citizen has 12 months to register every gun they own and thereafter it is a crime to have or use an unregistered one, then you'd have the basis for a trackable system going forward.

Dont know if this is feasible, but a person who wants to keep their rights likely wouldnt oppose. i already have to do that now in NY.

Yes, difficult to imagine it being implemented, but it would eventually thin out many instances of casual weapon access and lessen the chances of impulse usage. Lots of killing is impulsive. I agree you cannot protect against every methodical maniac, but they shouldn't be able to amass arsenals and rounds of bullets like they have done so easily in the past.

Idk man, I really dont think it lessens anything but the persons doing things the legal way. There's a clear distinction between this particular individual having 13 guns and a gun collector or a professional hunter, but if a universal system can identify the difference....no issue.

And lastly (I'm wearing out on this I confess), I believe change takes time and sometimes you need constraints first to induce long-term behaviorial change. Some would be kicking and screaming, but in the end if you have a society where you can still have a weapon if you dot your T's and cross you I's, then I don't care if some egos are bruised in the process. What I don't agree with is if someone suggests that amounts to a lot of hassle for what cannot be proven will be a predictable change for the better. And to that I say how can you believe it will get better the way things are? You have to try and sometimes when you take action the changes are profound. It would be generational, but it could be significant.

Understood, but such a change has to produce results, just trying really isnt gonna cut it and with minimal side effects. I personally believe change produces some solution but adds new problems kinda like medicine with side effects. Doesnt mean I wont take the medicine, but I will weigh the pros and cons of doing so. A main reason why I'm not an otc pain reliever type of person because of most of their side effects. I'm sure you get my point.

[Clyde_Style]

I do think gun shows are very much an issue since the rules are different. If you can go there and buy without a background check, then it defeats the purpose of having the Brady Law for background checks elsewhere. Further, with lax standards like that, a proxy buyer can acquire guns at a gun show for distribution in other states regardless of their stated intention to keep it in-state. It has been a known issue that gun shows are frequented by gun traffickers. I just found a reference to a 1998 memo from Clinton to the Treasury and the Attorney General expressing concerns to that effect. It's been considered a "loophole" for years. It has to be closed.

Essentially, gun transactions between private citizens have to be overseen by the same laws as dealers.

I understand why you're using the medical analogy, but while there the matter of probable cause and effect and unintended side effects, it becomes really hard to even reach that stage of the decision making process with a patchwork system, full of inter-state consistencies and loopholes.

You're more skeptical of the long-term effects, but even if you were not sure how things will pan out, I think we may agree on my primary point that it is worth trying, because unless you do it won't improve. Make the changes and if the impact is negligible, you tried and probably caused little collateral damage. But if it works, its a big win and you can't find out unless you institute enforceable , universal standards.

And that is what I'm asking everyone to start considering, because the divisions people were taking sides on don't necessarily exist. It is an emotional default position many are rooted in and they don't need to regard reformed gun laws as a threat to their liberties.

[Clyde_Style]

If I shot anything, it was my wad. I've said my peace in this thread. Hope folks take some of what I said to heart.

[HarthorneWingo]

This just happened in Tennessee.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/tennessee-boy-11-shoots-girl-8-argument-puppy-article-1.2385429

11-year-old Tennessee boy shoots 8-year-old girl over argument about puppy
BY JASON SILVERSTEIN NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Updated: Monday, October 5, 2015, 11:19 AM A A A

Here's another one.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/25/chad-pickering-shoots-teen_n_5621588.html

Chad Pickering Repeatedly Shoots Teen Over Lawnmower Dispute, Cops Say
The Huffington Post | By David Lohr
Email
Posted: 07/25/2014 3:31 pm EDT Updated: 07/25/2014 3:59 pm EDT

A former Minnesota corrections officer is accused of gunning down a teenager who asked him to stop trespassing on her property.

Chad Pickering, 40, of Eckles Township, faces one count of premeditated first-degree attempted murder. The alleged victim's name is not being released due to her age.

Sounds to me, at least in these cases, there was nothing that would have stopped these people...these are not similar situations to the mass shootings that most in these threads are referring to. Even if you were to completely ban all guns, what you may have done was just change the weapon used. These 2 cases could have easily been duplicated with another type of weapon when you have a targeted attack on a single individual. Would it have been better if the 11 year old killed an 8 year old with an aluminum bat? Or if the creepy 40 year old hacked up the 17 year old girl with a chainsaw?

[E-Balla]

I do think gun shows are very much an issue since the rules are different. If you can go there and buy without a background check, then it defeats the purpose of having the Brady Law for background checks elsewhere. Further, with lax standards like that, a proxy buyer can acquire guns at a gun show for distribution in other states regardless of their stated intention to keep it in-state. It has been a known issue that gun shows are frequented by gun traffickers. I just found a reference to a 1998 memo from Clinton to the Treasury and the Attorney General expressing concerns to that effect. It's been considered a "loophole" for years. It has to be closed.

Essentially, gun transactions between private citizens have to be overseen by the same laws as dealers.

I understand why you're using the medical analogy, but while there the matter of probable cause and effect and unintended side effects, it becomes really hard to even reach that stage of the decision making process with a patchwork system, full of inter-state consistencies and loopholes.

You're more skeptical of the long-term effects, but even if you were not sure how things will pan out, I think we may agree on my primary point that it is worth trying, because unless you do it won't improve. Make the changes and if the impact is negligible, you tried and probably caused little collateral damage. But if it works, its a big win and you can't find out unless you institute enforceable , universal standards.

And that is what I'm asking everyone to start considering, because the divisions people were taking sides on don't necessarily exist. It is an emotional default position many are rooted in and they don't need to regard reformed gun laws as a threat to their liberties.

Whoa. My bad I didn't get back to you yesterday I got busy and completely forgot about it until today but this is the type of misconceptions I'm talking about that gun nuts love to hear because it's nonsense. I've been to 4 gun shows in my life and not at one have I seen a private seller. That's important because no matter what a registered seller has to do background checks. The gun show loophole is one of those buzz terms that are really not an issue. The gun show loophole is the same as buying from a private seller at any time and the law exists to help parents (for example) give guns to their kids. I know someone who's dad gifted him his first hunting rifle and this the law that allows that to happen without having to sign paperwork. In 2001 there was an inmate survey and 0.7% of prisoners obtained their guns from a gun show. That's the type of thing anti-background check people hear and love to eat up.

[E-Balla]

I don't think you can assume anything like that. I grew up having shot rifles and shotguns when I was a kid. It was supervised. Knew plenty of people with guns in their houses. You can't live in the country and not be exposed to guns. Some people in the cities will either be exposed to guns or not at all, but it is mostly for different reasons.

What someone's beliefs about gun regulation are cannot be assumed to be based on their personal exposure to guns.

Well I said anti gun not pro regulation. Most people wanting an all out gun ban ala England and Australia don't seem to know much about guns in my personal experience. It's the reason I started avoiding these types of threads. Wingo is cool though. We disagree but rarely is he flat out wrong.

That's why I pushed in this thread to ask people to start saying what do you want to do?

Otherwise there is this reflex many of us are guilty of where we think we're taking a side when in fact many of us can find a pretty clear common ground around the agenda of better regulations and implementation of them.

Since America's historical basis was founded on revolution and the enshrinement of the right to bear arms, it is not ever going to be a good starting point or viable discourse to pose the situation as guns or no guns.

But there should be an obtainable voting majority that agrees on better laws.

For instance, has anyone in this thread who has scoffed at gun regulations come right out and said they either support the ownership of assault weapons or not? NOT THAT I CAN SEE.

I think a lot of people are just angry by default and it makes them unable to consider the situation clearly. If someone gets all tensed up and defensive whenever someone mentions revamping gun laws, then nothing comes of the conversation.

And if people really want to keep saying guns are not the problem, then what are they afraid of when it comes to better enforcement? If they are sane and complying with the laws and they can still own their gun, what is the problem here?

Instead, many derail the discussion by saying it is about mental illness and not guns. Well, do they want better laws or not? Lots of evasion going on here, because if we are going to debate this and get anywhere we need to frame the debate better.

And you frame the debate by asking to setting aside these various tangents first and asking about the laws themselves. Are they just fine the way they are? Do they believe in a patchwork system of laws? Do they believe a federal standard will improve the situation?

Yes, analyzing statistics are part of determining where you stand on those questions, but it would seem reasonable the basic inference that can be drawn from statistics is that good laws do have an effect. Particularizing the analytics past a certain point evades the broader question of unified laws, because it is a broad question for a big population. It is not something that can be cherry picked to death. Either you see that positive changes can be made or you disagree or you just don't care.

As far as I know, the rest of the world seems to address this as a national issue. Our confederacy of states is not working for this issue. When are people going to deal with this?

They need to allow gun research again and we can move from there. All of our information on guns is 20 years old. I think treating guns like cars (with titles, licenses, etc.) is the best way but then there's people who won't be able to get to a gun DMV and you're restricting access to a right at that point.

As far as mental health goes there's really nothing you can do about that besides start opening up more mental care facilities which they direly need to do.

[Clyde_Style]

I do think gun shows are very much an issue since the rules are different. If you can go there and buy without a background check, then it defeats the purpose of having the Brady Law for background checks elsewhere. Further, with lax standards like that, a proxy buyer can acquire guns at a gun show for distribution in other states regardless of their stated intention to keep it in-state. It has been a known issue that gun shows are frequented by gun traffickers. I just found a reference to a 1998 memo from Clinton to the Treasury and the Attorney General expressing concerns to that effect. It's been considered a "loophole" for years. It has to be closed.

Essentially, gun transactions between private citizens have to be overseen by the same laws as dealers.

I understand why you're using the medical analogy, but while there the matter of probable cause and effect and unintended side effects, it becomes really hard to even reach that stage of the decision making process with a patchwork system, full of inter-state consistencies and loopholes.

You're more skeptical of the long-term effects, but even if you were not sure how things will pan out, I think we may agree on my primary point that it is worth trying, because unless you do it won't improve. Make the changes and if the impact is negligible, you tried and probably caused little collateral damage. But if it works, its a big win and you can't find out unless you institute enforceable , universal standards.

And that is what I'm asking everyone to start considering, because the divisions people were taking sides on don't necessarily exist. It is an emotional default position many are rooted in and they don't need to regard reformed gun laws as a threat to their liberties.

Whoa. My bad I didn't get back to you yesterday I got busy and completely forgot about it until today but this is the type of misconceptions I'm talking about that gun nuts love to hear because it's nonsense. I've been to 4 gun shows in my life and not at one have I seen a private seller. That's important because no matter what a registered seller has to do background checks. The gun show loophole is one of those buzz terms that are really not an issue. The gun show loophole is the same as buying from a private seller at any time and the law exists to help parents (for example) give guns to their kids. I know someone who's dad gifted him his first hunting rifle and this the law that allows that to happen without having to sign paperwork. In 2001 there was an inmate survey and 0.7% of prisoners obtained their guns from a gun show. That's the type of thing anti-background check people hear and love to eat up.

I did say all private transactions per the bold above, even dad giving his rifle to his son.

And 0.7% sounds like a significant number to me. It seems odd that anyone would gloat over that as proof to the contrary. Is that what you've seen as a reaction?