Tuscon incident and gun control discussion

[Alyeska]

The Tuscon inicident is actualy highly unusual. The high number of kills and injuries off a single magazine. Crowds usually disperse with incredible speed and the shooter doesn't get nearly so many victims.

I would be hesitant to draw any conclussions until the incident is fully investigated.

[Mr. Coffee]

The Tuscon inicident is actualy highly unusual. The high number of kills and injuries off a single magazine. Crowds usually disperse with incredible speed and the shooter doesn't get nearly so many victims.

My money's on Loughner being one of those rare "he was actually a competent marksman" guys.

[Broomstick]

It was more to bring up a counter to your argument that the USA is so very special in having a militant populace, being a right-wing country and having large groups of people owning guns privately, with the civilian market being important as well.

I wasn't arguing that we were someone special or unique in such matters, only state that that is the current state of affairs. And I wouldn't describe us as "militant" so much as "violent", the former implying a level of organization that I just don't think it out there. While there are some organized groups, most of the gun violence in this country is perpetrated by individuals acting on their own, not as part of a larger group.

Anyhow, I'm not sure how the Prussians electing Nazis to power is relevant to their willingness to give up their guns. Did they do that because there were in favor of and trusted the Nazis, or because they were big on maintaining public order and thought gun control would further that end without it being relevant to their favoring of the Nazis, or something else?

Militarism and revanchism played a large part in electing the Nazis.

OK, that sounds sensible.

Would you be so generous as to propose possible ways to fix such attitudes?

Have public leaders continue to speak out against gun possession, fund massive ad campaigns against gun ownership, tax guns heavily, restrict ammunition production, tax ammunition, enforce (stricter) license laws, enforce standards in video games, TV and movies (the idea that killing people left and right is great but a naked breast is automatically an R rating is one of the most stupidly offensive rules ever). Teach kids properly. Have gun owners pay an annual gun tax. Destroy all illegal weapons confiscated. Force every gun owner to attend regularly mandatory safety courses. Try and reduce the image of owning a gun = tough, cool.

Public leaders speaking out against guns and ad campaigns are doable, and to a limited extent already occur.

Taxing guns, as well as restricting ammunition and taxing ammunition is likely to run afoul of our system, as the courts have usually ruled taxing something as a means of restricting access is not OK. With cigarettes it's usually justified as being necessary to cover the health costs imposed by use of the product. Would seem reasonable to me to use a similar tactic - use the high taxes on guns/ammo to fund healthcare or hospitals or trauma centers or rehab facilities. It would require a little legal dancing to work here, but hey, it will keep the lawyers employed. An annual tax on guns would have to be shoehorned into the "property tax" category, and might be hell to enforce. Might be easier and more practical to tax the purchase of ammunition. You'll still have to worry about those who make their own ammo, but it will substantially cut into the overall problem.

I'm already on record as favoring stricter licensing laws. If you want to own a gun first demonstrate you're up to the responsibility. Minors should only be operating firearms under the direct supervision of a licensed adult. If someone loses a license there is the problem of what happens to their guns (there was a prominent case locally where a cop accused of murdering at least two of his wives had his firearms license revoked and he peacefully surrendered all his weapons - that's the ideal case but it's not always that pretty) and what about households where some members are allowed guns and some aren't...but I don't know if anyone wants to delve into those sorts of things.

I'd like some clarification of "standards in video games, TV, and movies". I totally agree that the cultural norms that say it's OK to see mayhem, murder, and gore but least bit of booby needs to be hidden/slapped with warning/restricted is out of whack. It would probably do the US good to see a few more naked body parts and a lot less blood. While I do enjoy the occasional violent entertainment I want it to be purely fiction (unless it involves a historical drama or documentary) and I'm mature enough to distinguish between real life and the movies. I wouldn't want everything with violence and killing banned, but I support restricting the access of minors to such things.

I can't speak for all localities, but around here illegal guns ARE typically destroyed. They are rendered unusable then sent to refineries to be melted down and remade into something else. Guns surrendered in turn-in programs are treated likewise, so that's already occurring.

But if the President won't even make a speech about gun control without first pussyfooting around the problem by offering plenty of caveats about how he respects people's right to own a deadly weapon for no other reason than personal pleasure...then that is a problem right here. I am not talking about reenactors or people who collect historical muskets, no I am talking about handguns, assault rifles and machineguns. Yes, private citizens own machineguns. Legally.

Yes, I am aware of that. Legality of such ownership does vary (the show Mythbusters has had to move to another filming location at times to test firearms myths when the particular firearms required for testing aren't legal in their normal area of operations, for example) but yes, there are places it is legal for a private citizen to own a machine gun. And the numbers of such guns - legal or illegal - involved in crimes is miniscule. Sure, my great-uncle Morry was killed by a machine gun - in 1920 something - but in recent decades the biggest problems have come from handguns. That's why a lot of the gun debate in the US centers around handguns. They're the biggest problem, and if you're going to go after guns you need to go after those first. "Long guns" like shotguns and rifles are occasionally used in crimes but far, far less often. Long gun arguably have more utility as tools - hunting, vermin control, sport shooting, and so forth - than do handguns, which by and large are not used for hunting but more either target shooting (which is acceptable from my viewpoint) or shooting or threatening to shoot human beings, which is what we want to prevent. It's also a hell of a lot harder to conceal a long gun than a handgun, making getting them to and from crime scenes a lot more difficult. Walk down a city street with a rifle on your shoulder the cops will be paying you a visit. On the other hand, you can easily conceal a handgun.

If you're referring to slave ownership it required a 4 year war that, arguably, resulted in more dead Americans than the death toll from all other conflicts the US has participated in combined. It also resulted in such charming devices being either invented or refined as the concentration camp and the land mine. Pardon me if I find such extreme measures unpalatable.

I was refering more to the changes of attitude that went on in the North, however I should have expected you to immediately latch on to war. I am not going to argue for a war to be started to reclaim firearms, no I am arguing that through decades of debate, opinion in the North slowly changed from pro-slavery to anti-slavery.

That view ignores the fact that slavery was never as useful in the north as in the south, and the social factors that lead to the plantation system in the south and the increasing difficulty of blacks achieving freedom. Colonial slavery started in the north, in places like Boston and New York, but no form of northern industry rose up where massive of amounts of slave labor were economically attractive in the way that the plantation system made slavery useful in the south. It was always easier for a black person to gain freedom and retain freedom in the north than in the south. The agricultural south was never going to voluntarily give up slavery until the plantation system of agriculture was broken up.

By analogy, you have to figure out what maintains "gun culture" in the US and then work on changing those social factors. I already mentioned inner city dangers - in some of the large inner cities in the US a young man is actually more likely to be shot than if he were in many war zones. Some families, those with relatives outside the inner city, will even send their young teens/men off to live with those relatives in hopes of them avoiding such violence. Those that remain - they are facing very real dangers. If you don't address the crime and social conditions you aren't going to convince these people to give up their guns as disarming themselves under such conditions isn't a logical thing to do from their viewpoint.

If you're in one of the rural/wilderness areas it's going to be hard to convince those who still depend upon hunting for some of their food, and for protection from real wildlife threats, to give up their guns and since the US does have a significant area where such conditions exist it has to make laws that deal with those people as well as those in more urban areas. It's not impossible to do this - the "food stamps" program that provides aid to the poor does, in fact, allow people in rural Alaska, and ONLY rural Alaska, to purchase hunting ammunition to use for subsistence hunting out of concession that circumstances are different there than in, say, Atlanta, Georgia. For that matter, aviation regulations differ not only for Alaska out of concession to their conditions but also for Hawaii, again, in response to significant differences between that area and the rest of the country. It is one sign of the nuttiness of the gun debate in this country that the rabid extremes on both ends are entirely unwilling to consider such factors. Really, why shouldn't gun regulations in a highly urbanized area like Manhattan differ from those on a large farm in Iowa which differs yet again from the North Slope area of Alaska where polar bears are indigenous, have no fear of man, and will happily stalk and kill human beings as well as seals? I'm told Canadian gun laws take into account these issues (their far north has dangerous wildlife, too, and subsistence hunters) so it's not like "gun control" can't bow to reality and local conditions.

I'm guessing gun laws are somewhat easier to concoct for Germany which has less extreme variations of terrain, latitude, and lifestyle. Less need for exceptions. That doesn't excuse the current state of affairs, after all, it is possible to work out a system that does take that into account, it just complicates the matter which is of no help in getting sane regulations.

But today, no anti-gun politician will ever get airtime, unlike in the days of old when abolitionist were highly visible and even respectable presidential contenders.

Strictly speaking not true - but you're not in a position to see it. Anti-gun politicians DO exist, DO get elected, and can be highly visible. Chicago's Mayor Daley, for example, has been stridently anti-gun for all seven terms as Chicago's mayor. He's the one that springs to mind first, but there are others.

It's rather like saying Americans are all pro-death penalty. No, actually we're not, and fifteen states do not have any death penalty (some never had it). That's a significant minority, and something to build on.

I agree that the current US death toll from guns is unacceptable, however, forcible removal of guns from the populace will, under present circumstances, result in armed resistance. This will result in an even greater death toll. I'd really rather look at other ways to deal with the problem.

Eventually, if society manages to turn around, it is going to come down to a situation like in Germany - a few people paying high fees, undergoing strict backup checks and having to jump through a lot of legal hoops to own a weapon. At that point, let the people who have shown that they are capable own guns.

It may never get quite to that point here, but definitely I'm on board with the background checks and a few legal hoops to jump through. Make it like being a pilot - it's something the average person could achieve in the US but sufficiently costly and requiring enough actual work that only a motivated minority actually do it. No one is barred from it (outside of the mentally il, the physically unsafe, and certain categories of people who have demonstrated irresponsibility such as chronic drunk driving offenses) but most are not sufficiently motivated to jump the hoops. Becoming a pilot is easier in the US than in Germany, we have a higher percentage of our population licensed to fly, but really, the amount of crime linked to aviation is pretty insignificant (with the exception of one notable day in 2001). 90% of the US population could be licensed as pilots (wild ass guess there, but really, to cover the cost it only requires about $5,000-10,000 a year, even less under some circumstances,it's possible even for the lower middle class IF they really wanted it) but most don't want it badly enough to make it a priority. Make guns the same way - if you really want it the average person can obtain it, but make getting it/maintaining it annoying enough to provide a little discouragement.

Children's education is the key here. If you teach children that guns are bad, then you get a good result in the end.

Well, there are folks trying that method here, but to say American culture gives mixed messages on this issue would be an understatment.

No doubt that is because I am much more likely to be caught in the crossfire than you are, Thanas.

Oh please. When has the US populace ever responded to the Government oppressing them with violence in the last few generations?

1960's. Which I am old enough to remember. We had some assassinations, attempted assassinations, some very violent groups shooting and bombing people, it was all very ugly. It's arguable how oppressed the folks committing the violence actually were, and certainly they weren't as oppressed as some people in other countries, but like I said, very ugly. At one point tanks were driven into a major American city in order to restore order, which is getting prety drastic. I'd prefer not to return to that sort of thing, even if it doesn't qualify as open warfare.

[Broomstick]

Actually, limiting him to a lighter, smaller capacity magazine would have made it easier for him to reload (i.e. faster), so the potential tacklers could have ended up as victims themselves.

Just as a factual point - 2 of his 3 tacklers had already been shot when they went for him. The ammo grabbing lady and one of them men, who had a graze wound to the back of the head. So really, it was some of his victims who took him down.

That's an almost impossible to consider factor. How many people will bumrush an armed man in broad daylight with no cover?

Recent experience in Arizona suggests that there may be several such at the average local grocery store.

But I agree with others who say that one should be careful in extrapolating from that particular shooting.

[Glocksman]

Even if he was on the "don't sell to him" list he could still obtain a gun via private sale or a gun show. If no new high capacity magazines were being sold legally then obtaining one wouldn't be impossible, just more difficult. There value would go up immediately, as would the prices, and open selling of something illegal on Craigslist might happen but it wouldn't be common. It would make getting one more difficult. It won't stop all the shooters but it will stop some and might be justified on the grounds of harm reduction.

You're partially right in saying that he might have been able to buy a gun at a gunshow if he was on the 'do not sell' list.

Under Federal laws regulating private sales (sales between individuals that do not involve an FFL holder), an individual who is merely selling off his own collection and not 'dealing' in guns as a business does not have to conduct the 'instant check'.
In other words the sale is treated as any other 'private sale' is, namely that Federal law doesn't require any checks or record keeping about the sale.

State laws vary in that a lot of states don't impose any restrictions of their own on private sellers, while others mandate that the transfer be conducted through an FFL (who charges a small fee for the service) who will run the record check, comply with any state mandated waiting period, and keep the Form 4473 on file.

An FFL holder (one who buys and sells guns as a business) at a gunshow is still required to run the 'instant check', just as he would back in his store and he would have been required to not sell the gun to Laughner if he came up as 'do not sell' in the FBI's database.

Of course there are individuals who buy and sell as a business at gunshows that don't have an FFL, but they are violating Federal law in doing so, and the ATF *does* send undercovers in to gun shows to catch these illegal dealers.

In all of the gunshows I've been to, most of the 'private sellers' were selling high dollar antique and collectible firearms and not Glocks though there were a few exceptions.

[Serafina]

I'd like some clarification of "standards in video games, TV, and movies". I totally agree that the cultural norms that say it's OK to see mayhem, murder, and gore but least bit of booby needs to be hidden/slapped with warning/restricted is out of whack. It would probably do the US good to see a few more naked body parts and a lot less blood. While I do enjoy the occasional violent entertainment I want it to be purely fiction (unless it involves a historical drama or documentary) and I'm mature enough to distinguish between real life and the movies. I wouldn't want everything with violence and killing banned, but I support restricting the access of minors to such things.

A game where a main part of the game is to kill people with guns will generally get a rating of at least 16+ (16 years or above) around here, unless it is a strategy game where the violence is not visible. If said violence is not potrayed very carefully, or if it tries to be realistic (blood splatters are enough here), or if the people you are killing are not clearly evil, then your game is almost guaranteed to get an 18+ rating.
Fantasy-violence, such as swords and bows, is generally more tolerated than gun-violence as well - Oblivion has a 12+ rating while Fallout 3 has an 18+ rating, despite the german version being heavily altered. (you can't blow off limbs and the like).

If your game is being seen as outright promoting violence, glorifying war or promoting anti-democratic values can get outright banned (for sale).

Here is a list of german ratings for video games. It's technically in german, but the names are still well-recognizable for almost all games.

[Glocksman]

As far as my own opinion goes, I personally have no problem with requiring private sellers to use an FFL holder during the sale as long as the fee is kept reasonable ($30 or less per transfer).
It's the mandates that don't set any limits on fees charged that I oppose.

On the magazine issue, as a general rule I oppose capacity limits but I am willing to make an exception for pistols.
Though I would prefer the limit be on magazine length (i.e. cannot extend more than 1 inch below the grip) as this wouldn't affect rifle owners at all while making the double size magazines that Laughner used illegal.

As an aside, the high capacity Glock magazine that Laughner used was originally designed for the Glock 18 machine pistol.
That capacity might come in handy in a firearm with a cyclic rate of 20 rounds per second

[Thanas]

Public leaders speaking out against guns and ad campaigns are doable, and to a limited extent already occur.

BS. They are lip service appearances by politicians who say one thing and vote for another. When was the last time a President made it a focus of his? When was it a highlight of the State of the Union?

I'm already on record as favoring stricter licensing laws. If you want to own a gun first demonstrate you're up to the responsibility. Minors should only be operating firearms under the direct supervision of a licensed adult. If someone loses a license there is the problem of what happens to their guns (there was a prominent case locally where a cop accused of murdering at least two of his wives had his firearms license revoked and he peacefully surrendered all his weapons - that's the ideal case but it's not always that pretty) and what about households where some members are allowed guns and some aren't...but I don't know if anyone wants to delve into those sorts of things.

Meh. I wonder how Germany handles such issues and why there are no problems in this case....it is not as if the entire other world has no experience on this.

,
Yes, I am aware of that. Legality of such ownership does vary (the show Mythbusters has had to move to another filming location at times to test firearms myths when the particular firearms required for testing aren't legal in their normal area of operations, for example) but yes, there are places it is legal for a private citizen to own a machine gun. And the numbers of such guns - legal or illegal - involved in crimes is miniscule. Sure, my great-uncle Morry was killed by a machine gun - in 1920 something - but in recent decades the biggest problems have come from handguns. That's why a lot of the gun debate in the US centers around handguns.

I know that. I was using it as an example, so I am a bit worried here about you focusing on one aspect and not considering the rest.

That view ignores the fact that slavery was never as useful in the north as in the south, and the social factors that lead to the plantation system in the south and the increasing difficulty of blacks achieving freedom. Colonial slavery started in the north, in places like Boston and New York, but no form of northern industry rose up where massive of amounts of slave labor were economically attractive in the way that the plantation system made slavery useful in the south. It was always easier for a black person to gain freedom and retain freedom in the north than in the south. The agricultural south was never going to voluntarily give up slavery until the plantation system of agriculture was broken up.

Are you saying that owning guns is economically attractive? Or maybe we can agree that values might have a basis in economic facts, but are largely based on other factors (why a lot of the poor are arguing for laissez-faire economical conservative policies, for example).

By analogy, you have to figure out what maintains "gun culture" in the US and then work on changing those social factors. I already mentioned inner city dangers - in some of the large inner cities in the US a young man is actually more likely to be shot than if he were in many war zones. Some families, those with relatives outside the inner city, will even send their young teens/men off to live with those relatives in hopes of them avoiding such violence. Those that remain - they are facing very real dangers. If you don't address the crime and social conditions you aren't going to convince these people to give up their guns as disarming themselves under such conditions isn't a logical thing to do from their viewpoint.

Take them. If you go for input from these groups, you are never going to achieve social progress. It would be like asking plantation owners if they would be okay with freeing their slaves. You have to ride roughshot over some groups who might get their feeling or interests hurt. And all of this talk of social factors does not change the very fact that simply trying to change social factors without going after guns themselves is useless as there is no real incentive to give up guns. No, that can only be achieved by pressure.

If you're in one of the rural/wilderness areas it's going to be hard to convince those who still depend upon hunting for some of their food, and for protection from real wildlife threats, to give up their guns and since the US does have a significant area where such conditions exist it has to make laws that deal with those people as well as those in more urban areas. It's not impossible to do this - the "food stamps" program that provides aid to the poor does, in fact, allow people in rural Alaska, and ONLY rural Alaska, to purchase hunting ammunition to use for subsistence hunting out of concession that circumstances are different there than in, say, Atlanta, Georgia. For that matter, aviation regulations differ not only for Alaska out of concession to their conditions but also for Hawaii, again, in response to significant differences between that area and the rest of the country. It is one sign of the nuttiness of the gun debate in this country that the rabid extremes on both ends are entirely unwilling to consider such factors. Really, why shouldn't gun regulations in a highly urbanized area like Manhattan differ from those on a large farm in Iowa which differs yet again from the North Slope area of Alaska where polar bears are indigenous, have no fear of man, and will happily stalk and kill human beings as well as seals? I'm told Canadian gun laws take into account these issues (their far north has dangerous wildlife, too, and subsistence hunters) so it's not like "gun control" can't bow to reality and local conditions.

This entire argument is useless, as nowhere in this thread has anybody ever argued for abolishing hunting. Just license them, make sure they understand how to hunt and control them tightly. Might also want to restrict magazine capacity (five shots are enough) etc.

I'm guessing gun laws are somewhat easier to concoct for Germany which has less extreme variations of terrain, latitude, and lifestyle. Less need for exceptions. That doesn't excuse the current state of affairs, after all, it is possible to work out a system that does take that into account, it just complicates the matter which is of no help in getting sane regulations.

We got an entire industry just devoted to hunting which employs a lot of people. And 350881 Germans actually have a hunting license.

Strictly speaking not true - but you're not in a position to see it. Anti-gun politicians DO exist, DO get elected, and can be highly visible. Chicago's Mayor Daley, for example, has been stridently anti-gun for all seven terms as Chicago's mayor. He's the one that springs to mind first, but there are others.

He is not getting any visible airtime nationally. I am talking about national exposure.

It's rather like saying Americans are all pro-death penalty. No, actually we're not, and fifteen states do not have any death penalty (some never had it). That's a significant minority, and something to build on.

Doesn't matter as - unlike the death penalty - the significant minority is without any real power. Clinton gun control was a joke yet is held to be the highwater mark. It is pathetic and will not accomplish anything without real change in societ.

It may never get quite to that point here, but definitely I'm on board with the background checks and a few legal hoops to jump through. Make it like being a pilot - it's something the average person could achieve in the US but sufficiently costly and requiring enough actual work that only a motivated minority actually do it. No one is barred from it (outside of the mentally il, the physically unsafe, and certain categories of people who have demonstrated irresponsibility such as chronic drunk driving offenses) but most are not sufficiently motivated to jump the hoops. Becoming a pilot is easier in the US than in Germany, we have a higher percentage of our population licensed to fly, but really, the amount of crime linked to aviation is pretty insignificant (with the exception of one notable day in 2001). 90% of the US population could be licensed as pilots (wild ass guess there, but really, to cover the cost it only requires about $5,000-10,000 a year, even less under some circumstances,it's possible even for the lower middle class IF they really wanted it) but most don't want it badly enough to make it a priority. Make guns the same way - if you really want it the average person can obtain it, but make getting it/maintaining it annoying enough to provide a little discouragement.

Agreed.

1960's. Which I am old enough to remember. We had some assassinations, attempted assassinations, some very violent groups shooting and bombing people, it was all very ugly. It's arguable how oppressed the folks committing the violence actually were, and certainly they weren't as oppressed as some people in other countries, but like I said, very ugly. At one point tanks were driven into a major American city in order to restore order, which is getting prety drastic. I'd prefer not to return to that sort of thing, even if it doesn't qualify as open warfare.

Are you saying that taking away guns amounts to the same as segregation? And even so, the death toll was miniscule compared to the monthly murder rate.

[Alyeska]

On the magazine issue, as a general rule I oppose capacity limits but I am willing to make an exception for pistols.
Though I would prefer the limit be on magazine length (i.e. cannot extend more than 1 inch below the grip) as this wouldn't affect rifle owners at all while making the double size magazines that Laughner used illegal.

That sounds like a reasonable compromise. Once a magazine extends significantly beneath a pistol, it becomes a hinderance in some regards.

Though something to consider. I can take my 15 round Glock-22 magazine and use it in my Glock-27. It sticks out more than 1 inch. The ability to use the full size magazines on the smaller Glocks is a selling point. So there are still issues to resolve.

[Serafina]

Oh, wow, this argument has already brought up video game violence? Are we really going to go off onto that tangent? Because I've yet to see a thread where even a correlation between violent video games and crime was established. Lets just stick to talking about guns please, that topic deserves its own consideration.

It IS relevant when arguing about the attitudes society has to guns and gun violence in general, which is what Broomstick and Thanas are discussing. A society that is opposed to such things is more likely to take offense to them in video games (such as Germany), while a society that sees guns as an essential part of freedom is very unlikely to do so (such as the USA).
No one implied ANYTHING about video games being causative or even correlated to violence in this thread, so it was clearly a strawman.

[Glocksman]

On the magazine issue, as a general rule I oppose capacity limits but I am willing to make an exception for pistols.
Though I would prefer the limit be on magazine length (i.e. cannot extend more than 1 inch below the grip) as this wouldn't affect rifle owners at all while making the double size magazines that Laughner used illegal.

That sounds like a reasonable compromise. Once a magazine extends significantly beneath a pistol, it becomes a hinderance in some regards.

Though something to consider. I can take my 15 round Glock-22 magazine and use it in my Glock-27. It sticks out more than 1 inch. The ability to use the full size magazines on the smaller Glocks is a selling point. So there are still issues to resolve.

True, but it could be used as a starting point.
Perhaps if any gun/magazine combination exceeded a maximum overall length (grip + magazine) of x, then it's (the magazine) illegal.

[MKSheppard]

Of course there are individuals who buy and sell as a business at gunshows that don't have an FFL, but they are violating Federal law in doing so, and the ATF *does* send undercovers in to gun shows to catch these illegal dealers.

Do you have a link to the regulation where the ATF defines gun sales as a business or just recreation? I've been looking around the intardtubes, adn the only thing I've found is a rough rule of thumb that the ATF considers selling more than 12 guns a year over consecutive years as worthy of investigation.

[Formless]

Oh for crying out loud. If you attempt to reform society, you cannot have mass media promote a different lifestyle. The only correlation I am trying to argue here is that you have to have message control. I am not making any claims on what came first - the violent media or the violent society. Both cannot exist without each other.

Maybe, but then that's why I think it deserves its own discussion-- its a comlex issue in its own right. One which transcends the gun control debate.

[Thanas]

Oh for crying out loud. If you attempt to reform society, you cannot have mass media promote a different lifestyle. The only correlation I am trying to argue here is that you have to have message control. I am not making any claims on what came first - the violent media or the violent society. Both cannot exist without each other.

Maybe, but then that's why I think it deserves its own discussion-- its a comlex issue in its own right. One which transcends the gun control debate.

Then do it in another threat, not in this one. In fact I'll just split this out.


EDIT: Done. Link to Formless new thread about computer games violence and violence in general

[MKSheppard]

That sounds like a reasonable compromise. Once a magazine extends significantly beneath a pistol, it becomes a hinderance in some regards.

Then what's the point of banning such magazines? They make the pistol unbalanced and more unreliable, because the magazine catch wasn't designed to deal with such heavy loads on it; resulting in more average failures and less average accuracy, which is something we'd want in a crazy spree shooter. Whoops, your 40 round magazine fell out of your glock as you whipped it out.

[Broomstick]

Public leaders speaking out against guns and ad campaigns are doable, and to a limited extent already occur.

BS. They are lip service appearances by politicians who say one thing and vote for another. When was the last time a President made it a focus of his? When was it a highlight of the State of the Union?

Arguably, state regulation of gun ownership in the US may be easier to achieve than a Federal law. Many things that in other nations are handled by the central government are here handled by the states due to the way our government is structured. Whether that is the best way to run things is another debate entirely. Most criminal law, even such law as murder, rape, grand theft, arson, kidnapping, etc. is "the state" vs. the defendant not "the United States" vs. the defendant. The initial charges against Loughner involved only two counts of murder because they are Federal charges and the Federal government only has jurisdiction over the murder of Federal employees in this situation, the deceased judge and Giffords aide that was murdered - and if the courts decide the judge wasn't on official business then that one will be dropped and his murder will be under the jurisdiction of Arizona, not the United States. The other four murder cases will only be tried by Arizona, not the Federal government. It's how we do things.

The point is, gun control is more important as a local and state level issue than as a national issue. The decisions will be made by Congress, not the President. Gun licensing laws are set by state legislators, not Federal (with a few exceptions, one of them already mentioned is the Federal level firearms dealer license and justified by the regulation of interstate commerce). The issue has come in "State of the State" speeches, but I don't expect anyone outside the US to be paying attention to those even though here they are televised and receive quite a bit of attention.

Unless you're looking at the state level you won't see all this going on. As I said, I don't expect those outside our borders to be looking at that level.

I'm already on record as favoring stricter licensing laws. If you want to own a gun first demonstrate you're up to the responsibility. Minors should only be operating firearms under the direct supervision of a licensed adult. If someone loses a license there is the problem of what happens to their guns (there was a prominent case locally where a cop accused of murdering at least two of his wives had his firearms license revoked and he peacefully surrendered all his weapons - that's the ideal case but it's not always that pretty) and what about households where some members are allowed guns and some aren't...but I don't know if anyone wants to delve into those sorts of things.

Meh. I wonder how Germany handles such issues and why there are no problems in this case....it is not as if the entire other world has no experience on this.

I would be interested in knowing how the rest of the world does deal with such situations, but that might be worthy of a thread of its own.

I know that. I was using it as an example, so I am a bit worried here about you focusing on one aspect and not considering the rest.

Well, perhaps it wasn't the best example? I'd be happy to consider a different one. Another possibility is that Americans are more concerned with handguns than machineguns and consider handgun control a higher priority. Even in the worst areas here people don't worry about getting shot with machines guns, they worry about pistols.

Are you saying that owning guns is economically attractive?

It can be. Examples could be provided upon request, I'm sure. Just off the top of my head, and leaving out criminal enterprises where the economic benefits should be obvious, there is a fairly good sized market in collectible and antique guns in this country. They also have value as objects and can be sold for cash (though that isn't always done legally).

Or maybe we can agree that values might have a basis in economic facts, but are largely based on other factors (why a lot of the poor are arguing for laissez-faire economical conservative policies, for example).

I don't discount the influence of social and cultural factors, not at all. People own guns for many different reasons, just as people used to own slaves for many different reasons, and sometimes did so even when it didn't make economic sense.

By analogy, you have to figure out what maintains "gun culture" in the US and then work on changing those social factors. I already mentioned inner city dangers - in some of the large inner cities in the US a young man is actually more likely to be shot than if he were in many war zones. Some families, those with relatives outside the inner city, will even send their young teens/men off to live with those relatives in hopes of them avoiding such violence. Those that remain - they are facing very real dangers. If you don't address the crime and social conditions you aren't going to convince these people to give up their guns as disarming themselves under such conditions isn't a logical thing to do from their viewpoint.

Take them.

Then you will instigate bloodshed. Right now any forcible confiscation of firearms in this country WILL result in riots and bloodshed. If you don't understand that you don't really have a grasp of US culture and its relationship to the second amendment.

If you go for input from these groups, you are never going to achieve social progress. It would be like asking plantation owners if they would be okay with freeing their slaves. You have to ride roughshot over some groups who might get their feeling or interests hurt. And all of this talk of social factors does not change the very fact that simply trying to change social factors without going after guns themselves is useless as there is no real incentive to give up guns. No, that can only be achieved by pressure.

Then you are advocating civil war. If you go in by force you will be met by force. After all, protection against unreasonable government intrusion was one of the reasons the second amendment was written in the first place, and forcible taking of guns will trigger the feeling that the founding fathers were right all along about the population needing protection from their own government.

It may at some point come to that, but I'm all for giving alternatives a try before we get to that point.

This entire argument is useless, as nowhere in this thread has anybody ever argued for abolishing hunting.

Not in this thread, no, but even the most moronic SD.net contributor is usually smarter and more coherent than the average human being anywhere. However, extreme US gun control advocates do suggest that very thing, making them more anti gun than Europe. It was that crowd I was referring to.

Just license them, make sure they understand how to hunt and control them tightly. Might also want to restrict magazine capacity (five shots are enough) etc.

I'm not sure how we're supposed to "control them tightly" in wilderness areas - it's already pretty damn hard to patrol areas that, by definition, are still wild. That is, without roads or any other amenity of civilization.

Clearly, yes, tighter control is possible in more densely populated areas, such as rural farmland, and indeed the dense the population to more strictly hunting is controlled.

We got an entire industry just devoted to hunting which employs a lot of people. And 350881 Germans actually have a hunting license.

I don't doubt it. I'd love to counter with the number of US hunting licenses, but here such licenses are sold and regulated on the state level so that would mean looking up 50 sets of statistics AND there's a overlay of Federal stats for things like migratory ducks (which cross state lines, hence Federal involvement) and frankly I just don't care enough to do all that work. I think a hunter in the US needs a license for every state he hunts in, and it gets quite complicated.

Strictly speaking not true - but you're not in a position to see it. Anti-gun politicians DO exist, DO get elected, and can be highly visible. Chicago's Mayor Daley, for example, has been stridently anti-gun for all seven terms as Chicago's mayor. He's the one that springs to mind first, but there are others.

He is not getting any visible airtime nationally. I am talking about national exposure.

So am I. I don't expect you to follow US news daily, or to be entirely conversant with who is a national spokesman for what below the level of Congress or the PotUS. He may not be visible to YOU, that doesn't mean he isn't visible to people living here. There's more to US media than CNN, Rush Limbaugh, and The New York Times.

It's rather like saying Americans are all pro-death penalty. No, actually we're not, and fifteen states do not have any death penalty (some never had it). That's a significant minority, and something to build on.

Doesn't matter as - unlike the death penalty - the significant minority is without any real power.

Uh... are you seriously proposing that state governments are powerless unless they can impose their will on other states? We aren't that centralized over here. That minority isn't powerless, they've banned the death penalty in 15 states, nearly 1/3 of the country. And additional 4 have elected not to use capital punishment since the Superme Court permitted it to resume in 1976, effectively bringing to total to 38%. There are other states with de facto moratoriums, such as North Carolina where physicians are forbidden from participating in any manner in an execution, but law requires such participation, effectively making it impossible to perform a legal execution which increases the total of states where effectively capital punishment has ended. Not as good as entirely eliminating it, true, but it's not like it's just one or two off in a corner somewhere.

Clinton gun control was a joke yet is held to be the highwater mark. It is pathetic and will not accomplish anything without real change in societ.

True. Which is why simply passing laws isn't going to do the job. And simply going in and taking guns isn't going to work, for the reason you haven't changed the society.

I realize changing society is a very difficult and at times frustrating task. But as I see it, it's the only long term solution.

1960's. Which I am old enough to remember. We had some assassinations, attempted assassinations, some very violent groups shooting and bombing people, it was all very ugly. It's arguable how oppressed the folks committing the violence actually were, and certainly they weren't as oppressed as some people in other countries, but like I said, very ugly. At one point tanks were driven into a major American city in order to restore order, which is getting prety drastic. I'd prefer not to return to that sort of thing, even if it doesn't qualify as open warfare.

Are you saying that taking away guns amounts to the same as segregation? And even so, the death toll was miniscule compared to the monthly murder rate.

While I'd say it was likely that the murders of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcom X were related to segregation, and the Black Panther Party murder accusations were, I'm not convinced segregation was the impetus for the killing of either President John F. Kennedy or his brother Robert Kennedy during Robert's presidential campaign. I'm not clear why Alabama Governor George Wallce was shot by Arthur Bremer, a white man from Wisconsin, although I seem to recall something about Bremer not being able to get to Nixon and deciding to settle for Wallace. Granted the Weather Underground weren't shooting people... no, they used bombs, including getting one into the Pentagon that successfully detonated.

They were very much communist and declared their intent to violently overthrow the US government. Not all the civil unrest during the 1960's through mid 1970's in America was wrapped up in segregation and the struggle for black equality.

[Thanas]

The point is, gun control is more important as a local and state level issue than as a national issue. The decisions will be made by Congress, not the President.

So what? Does that somehow preclude any leading politician to get involved?

Gun licensing laws are set by state legislators, not Federal (with a few exceptions, one of them already mentioned is the Federal level firearms dealer license and justified by the regulation of interstate commerce). The issue has come in "State of the State" speeches, but I don't expect anyone outside the US to be paying attention to those even though here they are televised and receive quite a bit of attention.

Unless you're looking at the state level you won't see all this going on. As I said, I don't expect those outside our borders to be looking at that level.

If you think they are in any way effective or even moving the debate, then I'd like you to prevent some evidence of it.

I know that. I was using it as an example, so I am a bit worried here about you focusing on one aspect and not considering the rest.

Well, perhaps it wasn't the best example? I'd be happy to consider a different one. Another possibility is that Americans are more concerned with handguns than machineguns and consider handgun control a higher priority. Even in the worst areas here people don't worry about getting shot with machines guns, they worry about pistols.

But if the President won't even make a speech about gun control without first pussyfooting around the problem by offering plenty of caveats about how he respects people's right to own a deadly weapon for no other reason than personal pleasure...then that is a problem right here. I am not talking about reenactors or people who collect historical muskets, no I am talking about handguns, assault rifles and machineguns. Yes, private citizens own machineguns. Legally.

See what is number one there? Handguns.

Are you saying that owning guns is economically attractive?

It can be. Examples could be provided upon request, I'm sure. Just off the top of my head, and leaving out criminal enterprises where the economic benefits should be obvious, there is a fairly good sized market in collectible and antique guns in this country. They also have value as objects and can be sold for cash (though that isn't always done legally).

You are not getting it, really. For the analogy to slaveholders to be valid, I suggest you provide examples that it is the main source of income for the Gunholders.

I don't discount the influence of social and cultural factors, not at all. People own guns for many different reasons, just as people used to own slaves for many different reasons, and sometimes did so even when it didn't make economic sense.

A difference -the vast majorit of slaves were bought for economic reasons. I doubt very much the same is true for people owning guns.

Then you are advocating civil war. If you go in by force you will be met by force. After all, protection against unreasonable government intrusion was one of the reasons the second amendment was written in the first place, and forcible taking of guns will trigger the feeling that the founding fathers were right all along about the population needing protection from their own government.

Really now? Outlawing guns not licensed or outlawing gun owners who will not be able to meet permit standards equals civil war now? Are you that much in fear of gun owners? I doubt very few of them - except the milita guys - will actually rise up and fire. Evidence in much more violent societies (Germany after WWI, France etc.) suggests otherwise.

I'm not sure how we're supposed to "control them tightly" in wilderness areas - it's already pretty damn hard to patrol areas that, by definition, are still wild. That is, without roads or any other amenity of civilization.

Clearly, yes, tighter control is possible in more densely populated areas, such as rural farmland, and indeed the dense the population to more strictly hunting is controlled.

Make spot checks. The remote regions are not the main concern anyway - inner cities are.

So am I. I don't expect you to follow US news daily, or to be entirely conversant with who is a national spokesman for what below the level of Congress or the PotUS. He may not be visible to YOU, that doesn't mean he isn't visible to people living here. There's more to US media than CNN, Rush Limbaugh, and The New York Times.

So please show me the last time an anti-gun law speech got major airtime and was reprinted or discussed favorably in more than the Bumtown Daily. And what stricter gun laws have surivived the last decade? CCW is on the rise iirc.

It's rather like saying Americans are all pro-death penalty. No, actually we're not, and fifteen states do not have any death penalty (some never had it). That's a significant minority, and something to build on.

Doesn't matter as - unlike the death penalty - the significant minority is without any real power.

Uh... are you seriously proposing that state governments are powerless unless they can impose their will on other states? We aren't that centralized over here. That minority isn't powerless, they've banned the death penalty in 15 states, nearly 1/3 of the country. And additional 4 have elected not to use capital punishment since the Superme Court permitted it to resume in 1976, effectively bringing to total to 38%. There are other states with de facto moratoriums, such as North Carolina where physicians are forbidden from participating in any manner in an execution, but law requires such participation, effectively making it impossible to perform a legal execution which increases the total of states where effectively capital punishment has ended. Not as good as entirely eliminating it, true, but it's not like it's just one or two off in a corner somewhere.[/quote]

Please read my post closely and realize that it is not about the death penalty (note where I said UNLIKE the death penalty? Yeah.) but about gun laws. Please show me where any state legislature has passed legislation that severely restricts gun access and reduced ownership.

True. Which is why simply passing laws isn't going to do the job. And simply going in and taking guns isn't going to work, for the reason you haven't changed the society.

I realize changing society is a very difficult and at times frustrating task. But as I see it, it's the only long term solution.

And without moving the debate you are not oging to see any change. I am going to tell you right now that without severely stricter controls and much more restrictive laws you are not going to see any change in your lifetime.

While I'd say it was likely that the murders of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcom X were related to segregation, and the Black Panther Party murder accusations were, I'm not convinced segregation was the impetus for the killing of either President John F. Kennedy or his brother Robert Kennedy during Robert's presidential campaign. I'm not clear why Alabama Governor George Wallce was shot by Arthur Bremer, a white man from Wisconsin, although I seem to recall something about Bremer not being able to get to Nixon and deciding to settle for Wallace. Granted the Weather Underground weren't shooting people... no, they used bombs, including getting one into the Pentagon that successfully detonated.

They were very much communist and declared their intent to violently overthrow the US government. Not all the civil unrest during the 1960's through mid 1970's in America was wrapped up in segregation and the struggle for black equality.

Way to miss the point, which is that about one year of gun violence in the USA produces more deaths than the riots. Heck, more police officers are shot each year than died in the riots. But please, do not let that stop you from going on about your extensive knowledge about militia groups in the USA, which is so very tangential to this thread.

[Serafina]

It can be. Examples could be provided upon request, I'm sure. Just off the top of my head, and leaving out criminal enterprises where the economic benefits should be obvious, there is a fairly good sized market in collectible and antique guns in this country. They also have value as objects and can be sold for cash (though that isn't always done legally).

Then please, provide such examples.
There are some obvious ones - hunting, professional shooting competitiors and security guards (tough they don't have to own the guns themselves). And the people who own gun shops, though that technically doesn't qualify as "owning guns is economically attractive", because it's about selling guns.

Having a gun as a colletible is NOT profitable. You pay money for it, put it in a cabinet - but it doesn't earn you any money. Sure, you could make some income out of selling it for more profit - but by that argument, collector card games or hand-painted minitatures are "economically attractive" as well. The same argument as with the gunshop owners apply here - you are only going to make money out of it when you are doing it professionally on a large scale.

By comparision, owning a car can be economically attractive, because it allows you to do things that can earn you money, and it can actively safe you money. Having a garden can be economically attractive, because you can grow food in it. Having a piano can be economically attractive, because you can give lessons on it.
But having a gun gives you little to no economical advantage other than those named above, and i'm pretty sure that almost no one other than the groups named above is owning a gun for economical purposes.

[Glocksman]

Of course there are individuals who buy and sell as a business at gunshows that don't have an FFL, but they are violating Federal law in doing so, and the ATF *does* send undercovers in to gun shows to catch these illegal dealers.

Do you have a link to the regulation where the ATF defines gun sales as a business or just recreation? I've been looking around the intardtubes, adn the only thing I've found is a rough rule of thumb that the ATF considers selling more than 12 guns a year over consecutive years as worthy of investigation.

The applicable law defines it as trading primarily for profit or livelihood, so the actual number of firearms sold by the person doesn't really matter as the standard is the intent of the seller.

When I sold off most of my collection I was perfectly legal because I wasn't 'trading primarily for profit or livelihood'*.
However if I made a habit of buying a bunch of guns every year and selling them, I wouldn't be surprised to see the ATF at my door asking why I'm moving so many guns in such a short time.

*in fact I lost some money on the guns themselves, but I did get twice what I paid for my stock of 7.62x39mm ammo so in the end I barely broke even.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I think that a nation that has at least twenty-times as many shootings, 32 times as many murders (many committed with a gun) should really look into getting guns of the street.

I'm going to be honest with you, Thanas, this is really bothering me since most of the time you're really reasonable. Stas Bush, Kamakazi Sith, and His Divine Shadow have already pointed out to you in another very recent thread that violent crime rates do not scale to the per capita difference in firearm ownership rates or total numbers of firearms between the US and Finland or Germany.

Meaning the problem is not the number of guns, it's some other problem that we keep fucking ignoring and instead waste time pointlessly trying to restrict firearms. There is, however, other major factors such as the lack of access to mental health facilities and the vast economic disparity that exists in the US as compared to most of Europe.

However, you ignored what they had said and came into this thread saying the exact same thing you said in that thread.

I fail to see why the USA cannot enforce a law. In my opinion this is just a smokescreen to discourage people from actually attempting enforcement.

Imagine if you passed a law that made virtually 33%-50% of your population criminals who perceive no damn good reason for it, good fucking luck enforcing it. Then, let's add that a lot of police support the 2nd Ammendment, so they'll use their discretion to not enforce it.

Then let's add that our prison system is already taxed by the War on Drugs. The obvious answer to that is 'well you wouldn't have that problem if you ended the WoD', but then that ignores that the WoD is the thing responsible for turning non-violent drug offenders into hardened violent criminals or at least repeat offenders since having a felony on your record pretty much excludes you from any decent job factoring back into the problem of wealth disparity, so just ending the War on Drugs would solve a lot of the problem in and of itself.

[Thanas]

I'm going to be honest with you, Thanas, this is really bothering me since most of the time you're really reasonable. Stas Bush, Kamakazi Sith, and His Divine Shadow have already pointed out to you in another very recent thread that violent crime rates do not scale to the per capita difference in firearm ownership rates or total numbers of firearms between the US and Finland or Germany.

Meaning the problem is not the number of guns, it's some other problem that we keep fucking ignoring and instead waste time pointlessly trying to restrict firearms. There is, however, other major factors such as the lack of access to mental health facilities and the vast economic disparity that exists in the US as compared to most of Europe.

However, you ignored what they had said and came into this thread saying the exact same thing you said in that thread.

I am not blaming guns for all of the murders or the reasons for it. In fact, I am going to come right out and say that owning a gun does not prove one is a murderer. However, given all of the other factors including poverty, drugs, crime etc., why give people a deadly option? Why should people have easy access to such instruments? That is what I am arguing. Guns do damage, a lot, they are easy to mishandle and ricochets etc can get all kinds of people injured. You think the Cliffords shooter would have been able to kill so many people with a knife?

Then let's add that our prison system is already taxed by the War on Drugs. The obvious answer to that is 'well you wouldn't have that problem if you ended the WoD', but then that ignores that the WoD is the thing responsible for turning non-violent drug offenders into hardened violent criminals or at least repeat offenders since having a felony on your record pretty much excludes you from any decent job factoring back into the problem of wealth disparity, so just ending the War on Drugs would solve a lot of the problem in and of itself.

Why put people in prison at all? Have I ever argued for prison sentences? No, the right punishment is a fine and confiscation of the gun, followed by destruction of it after the legal process is exhausted. And people who already have a permit should be allowed to keep a gun for as long as that permit is valid. But that is it.

[Ritterin Sophia]

why give people a deadly option?

Because, crazy people exist, most crimes with a firearm were illegally acquired weapons to begin with so you're not actually hurting the criminals so much as the citizenry, the average response time of police is six minutes, and the police are not required to protect you. Do you know what happened when DC outlawed handguns? Handgun crime went up since muggers didn't need to worry about joe average anymore.

Why should people have easy access to such instruments? That is what I am arguing.

So they can protect themselves when the police aren't available, which they aren't. Also because restricting it has no net benefits when you take into consideration that the the new gun laws will distract from providing comprehensive mental healthcare to those who need and sufficient social programs to help ensure the poor aren't driven to crime.

Guns do damage, a lot, they are easy to mishandle and ricochets etc can get all kinds of people injured. You think the Cliffords shooter would have been able to kill so many people with a knife?

Why do that when we can focus our efforts on stopping the impetus for violence in the first place? As far as I'm concerned getting rid of the reasons for violent action is a far more beneficial act than just making killing harder.

Why put people in prison at all? Have I ever argued for prison sentences? No, the right punishment is a fine and confiscation of the gun, followed by destruction of it after the legal process is exhausted. And people who already have a permit should be allowed to keep a gun for as long as that permit is valid. But that is it.

Okay, I ask again. What do you think is going to happen when people perceive no valid purpose for this law? How long do you think it's going to take 100 million to 150 million people to realize that there is no way the government can effectively enforce this law with only 800k police officers over a land area of nearly ten million square kilometers? Especially given that our own resident officer of the law, Kamakazie Sith, has admitted that most of those officers probably won't even attempt to enforce it. It's a futile effort, you failed before you even began.

[Rob Wilson]

I am not blaming guns for all of the murders or the reasons for it. In fact, I am going to come right out and say that owning a gun does not prove one is a murderer. However, given all of the other factors including poverty, drugs, crime etc., why give people a deadly option? Why should people have easy access to such instruments? That is what I am arguing. Guns do damage, a lot, they are easy to mishandle and ricochets etc can get all kinds of people injured. You think the Cliffords shooter would have been able to kill so many people with a knife?

In all probability he could have still done a lot of damage. And that's just one example. If someone wants to kill people, just taking away guns won't stop them, or necessarily limit the number of potential deaths. It'll prevent deaths over range, but how many shootings have happened beyond 5m+ ?

Why put people in prison at all? Have I ever argued for prison sentences? No, the right punishment is a fine and confiscation of the gun, followed by destruction of it after the legal process is exhausted. And people who already have a permit should be allowed to keep a gun for as long as that permit is valid. But that is it.

UNfortunately in the US this would be beyond just bolting the door after the horse has left. This is trying to herd 1000 sugar-fed rabbits back into a barn using a single carrot...

I dono't like the idea of people with firearms, but there are too many out there in private hands to take them away. You can make them illegal sure, now try and take them away. They are too ingrained into American culture and thinking. It would take an incredible psyche changing event to make them all hand them over. You are unfortunately screaming at the tide here my friend, it's going to keep doing it's own thing no matter what.

[Thanas]

Because, crazy people exist, most crimes with a firearm were illegally acquired weapons to begin with so you're not actually hurting the criminals so much as the citizenry, the average response time of police is six minutes, and the police are not required to protect you. Do you know what happened when DC outlawed handguns? Handgun crime went up since muggers didn't need to worry about joe average anymore.

And AFAIK the best supplies for illegal handguns is the citizenry itself, which gets its guns stolen. So decreasing the amount of available guns being stolen means that fewer handguns can be acquired illegally. Oh, and the police are also six minutes away in Germany. By your argument everybody in Germany should carry a handgun.

Also because restricting it has no net benefits when you take into consideration that the the new gun laws will distract from providing comprehensive mental healthcare to those who need and sufficient social programs to help ensure the poor aren't driven to crime.

How so? And what great social programs are there currently that provide comprehensive mental health care?

Why do that when we can focus our efforts on stopping the impetus for violence in the first place? As far as I'm concerned getting rid of the reasons for violent action is a far more beneficial act than just making killing harder.

Even if you have a 100% sane populace, accidents etc. will still be happening. And don't you see how guns are a self-fulfilling prophecy? If you do not start cutting people off at one point then there is a danger.

Besides, how many people in the USA actually protect themselves each year by handguns? And is that number higher than the accidental deaths, gun murders etc? Heck, I'd just might as well argue that by having such prevalent guns, criminals are required to constantly up the ante to get an advantage. Where before they might have threatened a guy with physical violence or a knife, now they do it with a gun and are constantly trigger-happy for fear of getting shot themselves.

Okay, I ask again. What do you think is going to happen when people perceive no valid purpose for this law? How long do you think it's going to take 100 million to 150 million people to realize that there is no way the government can effectively enforce this law with only 800k police officers over a land area of nearly ten million square kilometers? Especially given that our own resident officer of the law, Kamakazie Sith, has admitted that most of those officers probably won't even attempt to enforce it. It's a futile effort, you failed before you even began.

You do not have to cover all ten million square kilometers. And besides, this "you failed, so why do something" attitude is exactly part of the problem. What, do historical prerequisites not count? What is it that makes America so special that the historical precedents of countries that disarmed its citizenry (in Western Europe all of them) does not count?

In all probability he could have still done a lot of damage. And that's just one example. If someone wants to kill people, just taking away guns won't stop them, or necessarily limit the number of potential deaths. It'll prevent deaths over range, but how many shootings have happened beyond 5m+ ?

That guy killed two. Loughton killed over three times that many. And wielding a machete is probably a lot more physically exhausting than just pulling a trigger.

UNfortunately in the US this would be beyond just bolting the door after the horse has left. This is trying to herd 1000 sugar-fed rabbits back into a barn using a single carrot...

Better to start somewhere. Just keeping handguns out of private ownership would limit the influx of new weapons onto the illegal market considerably.

I dono't like the idea of people with firearms, but there are too many out there in private hands to take them away. You can make them illegal sure, now try and take them away. They are too ingrained into American culture and thinking. It would take an incredible psyche changing event to make them all hand them over. You are unfortunately screaming at the tide here my friend, it's going to keep doing it's own thing no matter what.

US society has changed tremendously over the past, I see no reason it cannot do so again. Gay marriage, segregation, slavery....all stuff that is or was changing from worse for the better.

[Rob Wilson]

In all probability he could have still done a lot of damage. And that's just one example. If someone wants to kill people, just taking away guns won't stop them, or necessarily limit the number of potential deaths. It'll prevent deaths over range, but how many shootings have happened beyond 5m+ ?

That guy killed two. Loughton killed over three times that many. And wielding a machete is probably a lot more physically exhausting than just pulling a trigger.

What? So only the fit will attack people now? 'Aarggh I was so enraged about this situation that I'm going to kill everyone I can get near to... oh wait swinging this machete/stabbing with this knife takes up sooo much energy. Ah well I guess I won't bother.' Another massacre averted.

Seriously? You're going to have that as a factor? They want to kill someone, they'll do it with their bare-hands if needs be.

The guy in that attack had 3 targets, he killed 2, that's a 66% kill ratio, the other guy got away with massive wounds and it took emergency surgery to save him. If there had been more people there, he'd likely have gone for them to. Killing only 2 was because he had so few targets, not because he wasn't carrying a gun.

UNfortunately in the US this would be beyond just bolting the door after the horse has left. This is trying to herd 1000 sugar-fed rabbits back into a barn using a single carrot...

Better to start somewhere. Just keeping handguns out of private ownership would limit the influx of new weapons onto the illegal market considerably.

Really, how? I think you actually meant 'Might' there. And again, how do you get them all back? There's a lot of guns out there and getting them out of private hands will take up a lot of police manpower, legal bureaucracy and money. It's just not going to happen. My analogy above was understating the situation by quite some margin.

I dono't like the idea of people with firearms, but there are too many out there in private hands to take them away. You can make them illegal sure, now try and take them away. They are too ingrained into American culture and thinking. It would take an incredible psyche changing event to make them all hand them over. You are unfortunately screaming at the tide here my friend, it's going to keep doing it's own thing no matter what.

US society has changed tremendously over the past, I see no reason it cannot do so again. Gay marriage, segregation, slavery....all stuff that is or was changing from worse for the better.

Yes because all of those came about so swiftly, easily and universally with no problems whatsoever. Gay MArriage is still not sorted out and that's with an active lobbying group. SLavery took a civil war to sort out and then still took time, with segregation following.

As I said, it would take an incredible psyche changing event to make them all hand them over.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for gun control, but right now, the US is a lost cause.