I don't think there is any legislation coming that can or will stop these types of shootings.

 

Gun deaths in general need to be the focus. Even then I suspect it would, at best, have only a small impact.

 

I'm all for closing any "gun show" loopholes that I read about.

 

I'm all for coming up with some sensible limit on clip capacity.

 

I'm all for making a gun purchase take a while. I see that as letting any passionate impetus subside.

 

I can't imagine why gun owners would be against any of the above.

I am fine with this as well, but I think it all just comes back to your first sentence. From pro-gun guy's perspective, you have acknowledged this will do nothing to solve incidents such as last week, so lawmakers will be exploiting the incident to pass these type of reforms which do not do much except take steps towards abolishment of guns all together.

I don't think there is any legislation coming that can or will stop these types of shootings.

 

Gun deaths in general need to be the focus. Even then I suspect it would, at best, have only a small impact.

 

I'm all for closing any "gun show" loopholes that I read about.

 

I'm all for coming up with some sensible limit on clip capacity.

 

I'm all for making a gun purchase take a while. I see that as letting any passionate impetus subside.

 

I can't imagine why gun owners would be against any of the above.

I'm not saying I disagree with you (not saying I do either) but what would any of this solve/prevent? How many mass shootings happened the same day the person bought their guns? How many would have changed had the person had a smaller capacity mag? I do disagree that gun deaths need to be the focus.

I'm not saying I disagree with you (not saying I do either) but what would any of this solve/prevent? How many mass shootings happened the same day the person bought their guns? How many would have changed had the person had a smaller capacity mag? I do disagree that gun deaths need to be the focus.

 

My focus would not be on mass shootings.

I am fine with this as well, but I think it all just comes back to your first sentence. From pro-gun guy's perspective, you have acknowledged this will do nothing to solve incidents such as last week, so lawmakers will be exploiting the incident to pass these type of reforms which do not do much except take steps towards abolishment of guns all together.

 

Let me be clearer. I am not talking about last week. I am talking about incidents of death or injury involving guns.

 

Nothing is going to make huge changes. We should all acknowledge that. Even small changes ie decrease in gun incidents (suicide/murder/shootings) seem worth it to me and those changes have NO negative impact on those who want to own a gun for the right reasons.

Logic says that there are some people (hopefully not your bride) who have some episode that causes the to irrationally say " I need a gun to fix this quickly." Could be a lover quarrel. Could be someone that is suicidal. Seems like a week to wait would help a bit in that area.

 

I hear you.

 

On the flip side.... Here in town a couple years ago two guys broke in to the home of a guy with the intent of robbing him and shooting him. He was held at gunpoint but able to lure them to his car where he said his money was where upon he drew his weapon and shot them both (one fled but was later caught). Gun purchases I presume went on the rise here in town. So if you feel there is an imminent threat, being told you have to wait X amount of days may not set well.

My focus would not be on mass shootings.

OK. The number of intentional gun deaths in this country (not including suicides) is actually fairly small. Total fire arm homicides in 2009 was 11,400ish. More people are killed as a result of drunk driving. So if mass shootings is not your focus why are we not talking about stricter regulations on alcohol and tough penalties on drinking and driving.

OK. The number of intentional gun deaths in this country (not including suicides) is actually fairly small. Total fire arm homicides in 2009 was 11,400ish. More people are killed as a result of drunk driving. So if mass shootings is not your focus why are we not talking about stricter regulations on alcohol and tough penalties on drinking and driving.

 

About 18k kill themselves.

60k or so are injured via gun.

 

Lastly, why is an either/or with guns and alcohol?

I personally do not like a waiting period for nothing more then a cooling off period. If someone wants to kill themselves and they can't get a gun they will find a way. Plenty of bridges. Also no waiting period on rope. In the heat of the moment during an argument someone isn't going to tell the other person wait a second while I go buy a gun. Out of the 11,000+ gun deaths per year how many would be avoided if there was a waiting period? I think it's doing something just to do something.

About 18k kill themselves.

60k or so are injured via gun.

 

Lastly, why is an either/or with guns and alcohol?

Sorry but suicides and injuries are irrelevant to the discuss. No legislation will have any impact on either. I didn't say it was an either/or. But how many threads have you seen on here about stiffer laws and penalties regarding alcohol and DD? Now how many have you seen about guns.

Sorry but suicides and injuries are irrelevant to the discuss. No legislation will have any impact on either. I didn't say it was an either/or. But how many threads have you seen on here about stiffer laws and penalties regarding alcohol and DD? Now how many have you seen about guns.

 

Guns are the high-exposure issue now. When is the last time we had mass deaths from a drunk driver? 1988?

 

I disagree on the impact on suicides/injuries.

Guns are the high-exposure issue now. When is the last time we had mass deaths from a drunk driver? 1988?

 

I disagree on the impact on suicides/injuries.

 

Ok, do all the things you list in post #43. How will any of those things lower the number of injuries or suicides?

Ok, do all the things you list in post #43. How will any of those things lower the number of injuries or suicides?

 

The only way they would NOT cut down , even slightly, is if you believe everyone who guys a gun does so in a rational state of mind and NEVER buys out because someone caused them to lose their mind. I don't believe that.

Any proposed solution that restricts the distribution and or purchase of guns needs to come from the NRA itself. The NRA is simply too well funded and too powerful to overcome politically. Instead of forming another commission to come up with gun regulation proposals, Obama should just put the issue squarely on the NRA and channel public pressure for it to act. Action is needed NOW, before the public outrage dissipates.

 

My understanding is that the guns used by the Sandy Hook shooter were legally purchased by the shooter's mother!

Slippery slope. Ban the scary looking ones first.

Once they get their foot in the door and the next one happens, then what? Confiscate anything scary you legally bought before a ban?

I think there's something in the fact that our Canadian neighbors to the north that have strict gun control laws had 200 gun related deaths last year compared to 9,484 in the United States. The population of Canada is much less than the U.S., 35 million compared to 315 million, but the numbers are still way out of proportion. Other nation's numbers were: Germany 194, Spain 60, Britain 39, Australia 35, and Finland 17.

 

Our nation is too ingrained with a gun mentality. And everyone wants to use an amendment written in a time when guns were single shot muskets that took over a minute to reload. I'm not sure the great men who wrote the 2nd amendment foresaw the type of weapons that are on the market today.