I'm just having a little fun by turning the tables on the hackneyed argument that a gun isn't any different than an auto in terms of dispensing death. If that's the way one thinks, then let's regulate guns like we do autos: Age requirements, eyesight requirements, tax the heck out of 'em, registration with the state, proof of liability insurance, possession of an operator's license (which requires a written test and a road test), on and on.

 

And if all of that was done, how many shooting of this type would it stop?

There are plenty of laws on the books, could some more people be added to the "No Fly" list for firearm purchases...absolutely and I've said that over and over on these discussions.

 

Here is something that needs to be looked at when talking about gun crimes (not just mass shootings like at schools or other public places). We need to look at prosecuting gun crime more vigorously. Most state have statutes that escalate crimes committed with guns to stronger penalties. The problem is we have a country of lazy prosecutors that are just looking to cut a deal to get a conviction on anything. In many many cases they will drop the firearms charges (which would add significant time to convictions) and allow criminals to plead guilty to lesser crimes which put them right back out on the street.

 

I'm not talking about mandatory minimums, but I do think prosecutors should be held accountable when they are pleading out cases involving a firearm.

 

Most of the gun crime in this country comes from a very very small percentage of people. If those people were stopped at their first arrest then much of the gun crime would diminish.

 

This wouldn't stop psychopaths with mental or fundamental issues from committing heinous crimes, but no law will ever do that. So lets go after those out here on the street committing crimes with guns each and every day instead of worrying about our neighbor because he is a gun collector or target shoots for fun.

 

Let's focus on the CRIMINALS.

Here is where the car/gun thing breaks downL

 

People say: Guns don't hurt anyone, it's the people who misuse them criminally or negligently or accidentally. The implication of that is that we should focus on the "people" end of the equation. I think even the gun-worshipers would agree that I am not mis-stating the argument.

 

And then the comparison is made to cars, "cars hurt people, we should ban them too" Or something like that.

 

So the problem with that is that we treat guns and cars differently, so the pro-gun arguments are unfair/wrong-headed.

 

We know that there will be car accidents, and we require, for example, that cars be designed and manufactured accordingly. In other words, a car, properly used, won't be wrecked. But we know life is not perfect, so we require that they meet certain safety standards. We don't focus only on the "people who misuse" end of the equation. We address both sides of the equation.

 

And we take that same approach with virtually every object in our lives except guns. And nobody ever questions the legitimacy of that approach. When is the last time you heard someone argue that a car should not have to be crash-worthy because when used properly they aren't wrecked? Never.

 

Only with guns. Guns are the only object where we can focus only on one end of the equation and only in a very limited extent. Limited to talking about criminals and insane people limits only if those limits have zero effect. There are a significant number of pro-gun people who won't even discuss any regulation at all, and are perceived by others, myself included, as really caring more about their guns than the lives of others.

Here is something that needs to be looked at when talking about gun crimes (not just mass shootings like at schools or other public places). We need to look at prosecuting gun crime more vigorously. Most state have statutes that escalate crimes committed with guns to stronger penalties. The problem is we have a country of lazy prosecutors that are just looking to cut a deal to get a conviction on anything. In many many cases they will drop the firearms charges (which would add significant time to convictions) and allow criminals to plead guilty to lesser crimes which put them right back out on the street.

 

I'm not talking about mandatory minimums, but I do think prosecutors should be held accountable when they are pleading out cases involving a firearm.

 

That's quite a way to simplify an argument and use prosecutors as a scapegoat. I actually agree with your overall point that if our constitution grants a right to bear arms and individuals choose to exercise that right, we need to strictly punish those who abuse that right. Unfortunately, if your issue is with the glut of plea bargains, whether prosecutors are "lazy" or not, the only way to curb their prevalence would be for taxpayers to pay the salaries for more judges and public defenders, potentially build bigger courthouses, and/or the General Assembly to pass minimum sentencing legislation (which would open up an entirely different can of worms).

 

I know it's a great talking point, and I agree with you in theory, but our system as is it constructed can only function with the majority of criminal cases ending with a plea deal. To limit the amount of pleas, we would essentially have to choose between either raising taxes who knows how much or increasing the already often absurd amount of time between arrest and conviction.

 

In a way, gun escalating statutes and the persistent felony offender statutes in Kentucky end up increasing the severity of punishment even without trial. Whereas a crime by an individual without a gun or without a record would often be plead down to a lesser offense, by including these other charges, a prosecutor can get the defendant to agree to plea to the actual offense by dropping the escalators. So while they often don't escalate a potential punishment, in a way they do by increasing the likelihood that the defendant will plea to the actual crime.

Wholesale slaughter is the price of freedom.

 

And yes, just a bit hyperbolic.

 

I agree why do you condone leaving millions of Americans defenseless and left to be slaughtered by criminals.

 

Not showing much compassion for your fellow man.

Autos are certainly more highly regulated than firearms. If you want to compare auto rules vs. firearms rules, that's an argument you would lose.

 

One is a Constitutional right the other is a privilege that we participate on by driving on public roads.

Am I the only one that finds I comical that the people usually calling for gun regulations can't name or realize the laws already on the book.

 

I always here if you are anti gun control you are in the pocket of the NRA. I'm not a member never given them a dime. I'm just consistent I don't pick and choose what constitutional rights I defend.

 

I do find it ironic because these same people post the same left wing talking points and none have any real understanding on the topic.

One is a Constitutional right the other is a privilege that we participate on by driving on public roads.

Just because guns are protected by the Second Amendment does not mean that governmental entities cannot try to regulate them. A comparable comparison might be TV stations, which are protected by the First Amendment, but still have to follow regulations set forth by the FCC.

I strongly disagree with those who assign 100 percent of the blame to the irresponsible parent and zero percent to the lead-dispensing device that even a 3-year-old can activate.

 

It ain't that simple.

 

It can be that simple. Guns have safeties, ammo should be stored separately, there are locks made to put on guns, and they should be locked up in a safe place. If a gun is handled with respect there is zero chance that a 3 year old could activate. Not once did I ever worry about my weapons and my children.

Just because guns are protected by the Second Amendment does not mean that governmental entities cannot try to regulate them. A comparable comparison might be TV stations, which are protected by the First Amendment, but still have to follow regulations set forth by the FCC.

 

I didn't say they couldn't be regulated. They already are regulated. But a constitutional right should be much harder to regulate than a privilege granted on public property.

But a constitutional right should be much harder to regulate than a privilege granted on public property.

 

I agree with this, but don't you think we owe it to the victims of events like Sandy Hook, the Colorado movie theater, the Oregon shooting, etc, to give it our best efforts to keep guns out of the hands of the types of losers who have perpetrated these events?

 

And maybe there are things being done, I don't know, but it honestly feels like most people are kind of taking an "aww, schuks there's nothing we can do to prevent it" approach.

I agree with this, but don't you think we owe it to the victims of events like Sandy Hook, the Colorado movie theater, the Oregon shooting, etc, to give it our best efforts to keep guns out of the hands of the types of losers who have perpetrated these events?

 

And maybe there are things being done, I don't know, but it honestly feels like most people are kind of taking an "aww, schuks there's nothing we can do to prevent it" approach.

 

I've yet to see a suggestion that would of prevented most of the shootings , tor wouldn't hurt law abiding citizens.

 

The other part of the discussion that is never discussed is how guns are used as self defense much more often than a school shooting occurs.

 

So then we have to ask to those who are defending themselves not have the right to life ?

I've yet to see a suggestion that would of prevented most of the shootings , tor wouldn't hurt law abiding citizens.

 

The other part of the discussion that is never discussed is how guns are used as self defense much more often than a school shooting occurs.

 

So then we have to ask to those who are defending themselves not have the right to life ?

Uh oh...........the pro choicers will come after you for letting that slip

I wonder how all these guns show up in big cities?