Guns are designed and engineered to injure/kill. Cars are not.

 

But since we are talking about cars... In order to legally operate them, you have to take a written test (don't have to in order to buy a gun), a driving test (no test required to buy a gun), and if you mess up too often you can lose the privilege to drive all together.

 

Again, what is the problem with making it a little tougher to get a weapon?

 

A gun is also designed and engineered to protect yourself and family, to compete, to enjoy recreationally.

 

Since we are talking about cars you brought up THE key word. Privilege. Driving is a privilege, owning a gun is a constitutional right. Huge difference.

 

What's wrong with doing the things I and others have proposed first?

 

A gun is also designed and engineered to protect yourself and family, to compete, to enjoy recreationally.

 

Since we are talking about cars you brought up THE key word. Privilege. Driving is a privilege, owning a gun is a constitutional right. Huge difference.

 

What's wrong with doing the things I and others have proposed first?

 

Your ideas arent good enough because you are a gun totin closed minded conservative.

Let me ask some questions to those who oppose stricter gun control measures, specifically those who say more regulation won’t work.

 

It’s often brought up in these threads that automatic weapons are illegal (or the process of acquiring them legally is so arduous that hardly anyone does it). It’s also brought up in these threads that more regulation or restrictions won’t have any impact on gun violence. Yet, in cases of mass shootings/terrorism/whatever the perpetrators have almost never used automatic firearms (I’m sure someone will unearth an exception, but in the last decade of these events I don’t recall one; I think you’d have to go back to the Hollywood shootout), even though, at the risk of sounding macabre, they seem to be a better tool for the job.

 

So, do you believe the difficulty of legally acquiring an automatic weapon is part of the reason these weapons have not been used in these situations? Or, why not?

 

No. Because of cost and availability. Do you realize how many semiautomatic weapons are in circulation compared to full auto? Was just as true 40 and 50 years ago when we weren't having these mass shootings. So, tell me Habib, what's changed?

No. Because of cost and availability. Do you realize how many semiautomatic weapons are in circulation compared to full auto? Was just as true 40 and 50 years ago when we weren't having these mass shootings. So' date=' tell me Habib, what's changed?[/quote']

 

Complete desensitization of society.

Your ideas arent good enough because you are a gun totin closed minded conservative.

 

Yeah, and yet somehow we're the ones that get accused of painting others with a broad brush. Nothing sanctimoniousness about that...

No. Because of cost and availability.

 

Is this not a function of their regulation? Surely they would be cheaper and more widely available if new ones could be legally manufactured and sold for private use and the market for existing ones so tightly controlled.

 

So, tell me Habib, what's changed?

 

I don't know. I'm open to evidence.

I've been on a sabbatical for a while and I have not gone to every threaf I missed. I left because the rhetoric caused me to be angry, and that isn't what I want BGP to be for me.

 

I can at least in part agree all you say is a good place to start the conversation.

 

I want mandatory, recurring gun safety training to be a requirement. I want stricter laws pertaining to the harm or death og/at the hands of minors under the age of 16.

 

I think gun safety training is a good idea. I've always been a fan of things like the Eddie Eagle GunSafe program for young kids and I feel like the NRA is a good source for any age to start. I'm not sure how I would feel about a government controlled training course simply because of the problems with bureaucracy and I wonder how good the training would be. Just look at any road or highway these days, more than half the people that drive don't even seem to know the rules. That side, I think I could get on board if it was done right. I don't know about recurring for all gun owners. Seems like overkill for your average gun enthusiast.

The second part could well be part of what I already proposed. In all, you and I are as close to agreement on guns than we have ever been. So, that's a plus.

Is this not a function of their regulation? Surely they would be cheaper and more widely available if new ones could be legally manufactured and sold for private use and the market for existing ones so tightly controlled.

Anything that isn't made anymore is more expensive, I see it no different than something that is short of supply, regardless of regulation. I also can't see a reason to regulate a semiautomatic rifle the same way you would a fully automatic one based on how it looks and the fact that a small percentage of people misuse it. Seems backward, ineffectual and fruitless.

 

 

 

I don't know. I'm open to evidence.

As am I to it being the object rather than the change in people.

Anything that isn't made anymore is more expensive, I see it no different than something that is short of supply, regardless of regulation. I also can't see a reason to regulate a semiautomatic rifle the same way you would a fully automatic one based on how it looks and the fact that a small percentage of people misuse it. Seems backward, ineffectual and fruitless.

 

The supply is limited because of the regulation. I'm not advocating expanding the automatic regulations to semi-autos, but I think it's a case of regulation working. It isn't a case where only criminals have automatic weapons as is often suggested if guns were more tightly controlled. So, I'm not convinced that something can't be done that would both keep guns available for hobbyists and make them very difficult to get for those with ill-intent.

 

As am I to it being the object rather than the change in people.

 

I don't think anyone has ever said guns are sentient objects, but they are efficient tools for killing. I don't think it's a mystery why there are fewer gun deaths in countries where guns aren't so ubiquitous.

A few elementary school kids and a few churchgoers and a few gay clubbers and a few college students and a few child-care workers and a few moviegoers is a small price to pay. Just as long as most of them are persons of color from the big city.

 

This is really beneath you. It's also a vile, disgusting, deplorable, fraudulent attack on people simply because they don't agree with what you think should be done. For a guy that speaks of others using a broad brush and pointing out hyperbole, you've managed to outdo any I've ever seen on here. Disappointing to say the least. :no:

The supply is limited because of the regulation. I'm not advocating expanding the automatic regulations to semi-autos, but I think it's a case of regulation working. It isn't a case where only criminals have automatic weapons as is often suggested if guns were more tightly controlled. So, I'm not convinced that something can't be done that would both keep guns available for hobbyists and make them very difficult to get for those with ill-intent.

I understand that, but you aren't considering how many semi-autos there are out there. The fact that those firearms weren't used in mass shootings (gangster days excluded), as you yourself pointed out, should speak volumes that it isn't the gun. Looking for shootings with legally owned full-autos I found this:

 

Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.

 

I don't think anyone has ever said guns are sentient objects, but they are efficient tools for killing. I don't think it's a mystery why there are fewer gun deaths in countries where guns aren't so ubiquitous.

So a ban because of how they look is the answer? If not, what are you proposing? Do you realize how much damage a .22 semi-auto can do in a room full of people? I'm curious as to where you want to take this.

No. Because of cost and availability. Do you realize how many semiautomatic weapons are in circulation compared to full auto? Was just as true 40 and 50 years ago when we weren't having these mass shootings. So, tell me Habib, what's changed?

 

This is THE question to ask. What has changed in our culture that has led to the rise in violent crime?

Interesting facts:

 

1. Killers used a semi-automatic handgun in 75% of all incidents (study of shootings between 1982-2012). If you think legislation is the answer you should switch tactics from banning AR 15s to banning handguns.

 

2. Though many shooters showed signs of mental illness, only in two cases was there a diagnosis before the incident. Those who want to target the mentally ill for stricter scrutiny won't really effect things much. I don't know which two incidents these were but the Sandy Hook shooter acquired the guns he used from his mother's house. So, though he may have been mentally ill, restrictive legislation would not have stopped him.

 

3. There were no cases where an armed civilian fired back. Perhaps a solution that is left untried should not be so easily dismissed.

 

4. From an article: It's important to remember that [mass shootings] account for only a small fraction of gun violence in the United States. For example, the spike of 72 deaths in 2012 includes only 0.8% of all firearm-related homicides in 2011 (the last year for which statistics are available.) Many gun deaths, especially in large cities, never make the news. This means that the most effective gun violence reduction strategies -- in terms of lives saved -- might not target mass shootings at all. Yet this is where ALL the conversation resides today--as a result of media exposure and lefty politics. Who is it that does not care about people of color being killed every day?

 

5. What works and doesn't work (from same article):

 

Here are some approaches that don't seem to work, at least not by themselves, or in the ways they've been tried so far:

 

a. Stiffer prison sentences for gun crimes.

b. Gun buy-backs: In a country with one gun per person, getting a few thousand guns off the street in each city may not mean very much.

c. Safe storage laws and public safety campaigns.

 

We don't really have good enough evidence to evaluate these strategies:

 

a. Background checks, such as the Brady Act requires.

b. Bans on specific weapons types, such as the expired 1994 assault weapons ban or the handgun bans in various cities.

 

These policies do actually seem to reduce gun violence, at least somewhat or in some cases:

 

a. More intensive probation strategies: increased contact with police, probation officers and social workers.

b. Changes in policing strategies, such increased patrols in hot spots.

c. Programs featuring cooperation between law enforcement, community leaders, and researchers, such as Project Safe Neighborhoods (a program of George Bush) https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bja/205263.pdf

a. Stiffer prison sentences for gun crimes.

I argue they haven't been stiff enough or swift enough.

So a ban because of how they look is the answer? If not, what are you proposing? Do you realize how much damage a .22 semi-auto can do in a room full of people? I'm curious as to where you want to take this.

 

I didn't say anything about bans or basing regulations on looks. I just think it's possible to add accountability to the manufacturing, selling, and owning of firearms in a way that would discourage knee-jerk purchases and strongly disincentivize the illegal market. Such wouldn't end gun deaths but I think it would put a substantial dent in it and hobbyists would still be able to continue on.