I've been giving this a lot of thought and still not sure what the right answer is. Right now I think I am still just giving it a lot of thought. A few points I keep going over..

 

Before we can have a serious discussion about guns everyone involved needs to understand guns an how they work. Assault weapon seems to be the popular term for what guns to ban but I think in most people's mind assault weapon = scary looking gun. When in reality most have no idea that an AR15 variant and a Benelli R1 hunting rifle are no different in how they function. They are both available in large caliber and are both semi-auto. The difference is one looks evil and one looks pretty.

 

Capacity is another popular talking point. I personally think this has more merit when discussing bans/limitations then a specific gun. Is there really a need for anyone to have a clip that holds 30, 50, or 100 rounds? On the other side of the argument if we limit it to 5 rounds then a person only needs to re-load more. Does this really change anything?

 

Let's say for a minute we ban all guns. What changes? Do tragedies like this all of a sudden stop happening? Maybe instead of walking into the school with a gun someone walks into a school with a propane tank and a flare. Or they wait for the kids to be outside and they run their car through the middle of them. Maybe nothing, maybe all is well, violence ends and no more murders occur. Me thinks not but a brother can dream right?

 

I'm not sure about right now but I am sure that no one thing is going fix/change this. I'm also sure that no matter what we do, how many laws we pass, how many things we ban these types of events will still happen. We cannot live in a free country and protect everyone from everything. There are sick and evil people in the world and in this country and the fact is they are going to do sick and evil things. It's just a fact of life. Now that doesn't mean we shouldn't at least discuss how to make our country a safer place but what we shouldn't do is pass a bunch feel good legislation that has zero chance of making a difference.

 

I want everyone to think about this. The federal assault weapons ban passed during Clinton's time as President ran from 1994 - 2004. The Columbine shooting was in 1999, not to mention the number of other school shootings that took place during that time frame. We ban guns then pat each other on the backs like we've done something to make our world safer. When in reality nothing really changes.

Is there a downside to requiring all purchases to be registered?

This goes along with the call for a national database...what does it change? This kid as far as I know didn't own a gun. Again, is this more free good law or something that actually does good.

Is there a downside to requiring all purchases to be registered?

 

None. Other than Big Brother knowing you got 'em.

 

Also, the burden on the private individuals participating in the show.

 

I am not sure of the Kentucky law governing hunting rifles or shotguns but I have purchased these at gun shows. If both parties are Kentucky residents and the seller is not a dealer its a very basic transaction.

 

I will say walking through Rupp Arena with a rifle (with a tie wrap still around the trigger for safety as required in the show) was an odd experience.

 

Kentucky does not require ongoing registration of pistols and handguns (or rifles). But some states do. I had a friend move to Michigan and he had a pistol. He finally registered it as required by Michigan law. But in Kentucky I do not believe any basic firearm needs ongoing registration. So any private to private transactions are not 'known' specifically to the government. Maybe spindoc knows more on the actual Kentucky laws related to this.

 

One of the pushes of the NRA is for states that do require registration is that they 'must issue' the license or registration if there is no issue with the background check and not withold the license or registration for arbitrary or nebulous reasons.

I'm in no way in favor of a gun ban. However, here's what I'd be all for: I'd love to limit the capacity of magazines of semi-auto weapons. For rifles like the one used, there's no real reason in the world of hunting or target shooting or home protection that a clip of 5 shouldn't suffice. Make the high capacity mags difficult or next to impossible to obtain. Pistols are different depending on the caliber, but a mag that extends past the bottom of the grip is of no use for any of the reasons named above.

 

And I'll add this also, even if we were to ban high capacity magazines/clips it just takes one handy redneck to fab his own. So, I'll say again, if we are gonna throw resources at the problem in schools for instance, let's secure our schools both physically and with personnel.

:lol: OK, ignore reality. Let me know if you want to seriously debate this.

 

I did not say the abundance of guns is why this happens. I said there are too many out there already, as in a ban will solve nothing. Which, the fact you ignored about Chicago points out.

I didn't ignore reality. I just choose not to respond to a number picked out of thin air. Zero context accompanies it so it really doesn't add anything...

Becoming Australia.

I'm assuming they have a strict gun policy by your answer. What exactly is the issue with "becoming Australia"?

I'm assuming they have a strict gun policy by your answer. What exactly is the issue with "becoming Australia"?

 

And it led to a 59% decrease in gun homicides. Suicides by guns dropped 65%.

Lock up all crazy people in asylums....then we will talk about guns.

 

That state and federal budgeted subsidy money left in the 80's.

I'm assuming they have a strict gun policy by your answer. What exactly is the issue with "becoming Australia"?

Sorry, didn't see your question but it's easy to google and sportsguy answered. May be paranoia to a degree, but there's a perfect case of what happens with a total gun ban. And I understand that no one here is discussing that, but gun advocates will argue that once you travel down that path with one category of weapon, others will soon follow.

I'm assuming they have a strict gun policy by your answer. What exactly is the issue with "becoming Australia"?

 

First they had a gun buy back program, a large amount of guns were turned in, I think I heard a fifth of the guns in the country were turned in. Yesterday in San Fran they had a buy back and over 600 guns were turned them in.

I found some interesting thoughts in this article. A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths - Max Fisher - The Atlantic

 

 

To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you'll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle.

 

I think the costs would be prohibitive and the reality of the guns that are a part of our country and will never not be a part make it hard to compare Japanese culture and our own.

 

Also, Japan is probably not what one would call a "Hunter's Paradise" like the USA.

 

Still interesting reading and not too long I thought.

Sorry, didn't see your question but it's easy to google and sportsguy answered. May be paranoia to a degree, but there's a perfect case of what happens with a total gun ban. And I understand that no one here is discussing that, but gun advocates will argue that once you travel down that path with one category of weapon, others will soon follow.

Looks like they had some very impressive drops in gun-related violence.

I found some interesting thoughts in this article. A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths - Max Fisher - The Atlantic

 

 

To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you'll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle.

 

I think the costs would be prohibitive and the reality of the guns that are a part of our country and will never not be a part make it hard to compare Japanese culture and our own.

 

Also, Japan is probably not what one would call a "Hunter's Paradise" like the USA.

 

Still interesting reading and not too long I thought.

From your article:

 

In 2008, the U.S. had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides. All of Japan experienced only 11, fewer than were killed at the Aurora shooting alone. And that was a big year: 2006 saw an astounding two, and when that number jumped to 22 in 2007, it became a national scandal. By comparison, also in 2008, 587 Americans were killed just by guns that had discharged accidentally.

 

I'd like to hear from the pro-gun folks what the faults are with debating our current gun control laws? It definitely seems to be working there. Also, for comparison here are the populations:

 

USA: 314,953,000

Japan: 127,547,000

I think it is interesting that in Austrailia you can still own a gun. You just have to provide a reason but self defense is not a reason to own a gun and therefore you would be denied by the government.

From your article:

 

In 2008, the U.S. had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides. All of Japan experienced only 11, fewer than were killed at the Aurora shooting alone. And that was a big year: 2006 saw an astounding two, and when that number jumped to 22 in 2007, it became a national scandal. By comparison, also in 2008, 587 Americans were killed just by guns that had discharged accidentally.

 

I'd like to hear from the pro-gun folks what the faults are with debating our current gun control laws? It definitely seems to be working there. Also, for comparison here are the populations:

 

USA: 314,953,000

Japan: 127,547,000

 

You certainly don't hear of too many people that hunt for sport in Japan.