What needs to be done if we want to control guns

[rightwinger]

Despite all evidence the contrary, liberals believe gun control nuts are in the majority.

Actually..people that want responsible gun laws are in the majority.

True Americans are sick and tired of psychopaths with assault weapons killing large amounts are law abiding American Citizens.

So what do you propose we do with these psychopaths, and why should we restrict the rights of law abiding citizens who are not psychopaths?

We were able to go after drunk drivers without affecting responsible drinkers. We did not get rid of all drunk driving, but were able to cut it in half

We need a serious look at the number of gun deaths in this country and try to figure out what can be done about it. First off, we need to keep crazy people away from guns. How does that restrict your rights? Why would a responsible gun owner oppose that?

Secondly, we can look at the number of deaths from domestic violence. If you are arrested for domestic violence, you lose your guns for a week while you cool off. If you are convicted...you lose them for good

We need to look at gang violence. Where do their guns come from? If they come from secondary markets, we need to crack down on the secondary market. If they are stolen weapons, we need to go after the owners who did not secure their weapons

Saying nothing can be done is not a solution

 

[hazlnut]

WE NEED TO OVERTURN, THROWOUT, GET RID OF THE TIAHRT AMENDMENTS.

When you read what this congressman did on behalf of the NRA to prevent the ATF from effectively doing what they're supposed to do, you will agree that he will be burning in a special place in hell.

Blood from all these mass murders is on the hands of Todd Tiahrt.

NICS background check records are still destroyed within 24 hours:
The Tiahrt Amendments require the Justice Department to destroy the record of a buyer whose NICS background check was approved within 24 hours. This makes it harder to catch law-breaking gun dealers who falsify their records, and it makes it more difficult to identify and track straw purchasers who buy guns on behalf of criminals who wouldn't be able to pass a background check.

ATF still does not have the power to require dealer inventory checks to detect lost and stolen guns:
While dealers must notify ATF if they discover that guns from their inventories have been lost or stolen, the Tiahrt Amendments prevent ATF from requiring gun dealers to conduct annual physical inventory checks to detect losses and thefts. ATF reported that in 2007 it found 30,000 guns missing from dealer inventories based on its inspection of just 9.3% of gun dealers.

State and local authorities are still restricted from using trace data to fully investigate corrupt gun dealers and traffickers:
While the FY 2010 appropriations language restores full access to crime gun trace data for state and local law enforcement, the Tiahrt Amendments continue to restrict what state and local law enforcement can do with trace data they have gathered. For example, state and local law enforcement are still prohibited from using trace data in civil proceedings to suspend or revoke the license of a gun dealer who was caught breaking the law.

 

[Katzndogz]

The difference is neither a cigarette or a drink are useful in keeping yourself from getting killed.

The reality is people will have weapons for self protection. The more they need self protection, the more guns they will have. Every time a homeowner uses a gun to protect himself or his family, 100 more guns are sold. The woman in Georgia was probably responsible for selling thousands of guns.

You can't say that about cigarettes or alcohol.

Cigarettes, alcohol and guns are part of our culture

We couldn't ban cigarettes or alcohol same as we can never ban guns

What we, as a culture, did was make sure that cigarettes and alcohol are used responsibly. You can still smoke and drink but you are more accountable for your actions. If you smoke, you can't do it at work or inpublic areas.
If you drink, the bar will stop serving you if you are drunk or arrange a ride home. If you get caught drunk driving you will lose your licence the first time

We can't ban guns but we can make gun ownership more responsible and accountable. We can cut down on gun violence without banning them

We did it with cigarettes and alcohol

Are you honestly suggesting that criminals will learn to be more responsible criminals? Cigarettes and alcohol have never been used for self defense. That's the big difference. It's the difference you are missing. If you were to examine the violence in the most gun violent cities, you would see, quickly, that the perpetrators aren't legal gun owners at all. No law could make them more responsible.

 

[rightwinger]

The difference is neither a cigarette or a drink are useful in keeping yourself from getting killed.

The reality is people will have weapons for self protection. The more they need self protection, the more guns they will have. Every time a homeowner uses a gun to protect himself or his family, 100 more guns are sold. The woman in Georgia was probably responsible for selling thousands of guns.

You can't say that about cigarettes or alcohol.

Cigarettes, alcohol and guns are part of our culture

We couldn't ban cigarettes or alcohol same as we can never ban guns

What we, as a culture, did was make sure that cigarettes and alcohol are used responsibly. You can still smoke and drink but you are more accountable for your actions. If you smoke, you can't do it at work or inpublic areas.
If you drink, the bar will stop serving you if you are drunk or arrange a ride home. If you get caught drunk driving you will lose your licence the first time

We can't ban guns but we can make gun ownership more responsible and accountable. We can cut down on gun violence without banning them

We did it with cigarettes and alcohol

Are you honestly suggesting that criminals will learn to be more responsible criminals? Cigarettes and alcohol have never been used for self defense. That's the big difference. It's the difference you are missing. If you were to examine the violence in the most gun violent cities, you would see, quickly, that the perpetrators aren't legal gun owners at all. No law could make them more responsible.

Mass murders are usually not conducted by those with a criminal record. Neither are domestic violence murders.
No question that criminals can get guns. But we need to look at where criminals are getting their guns. Do they buy them from WalMart? If so, background checks will cut off their supply.
Do they buy them in private sales or secondary market? If so, we need strict accountability of where guns go after they are legally purchased. If you own a legal gun and sell it to a criminal....you are held accountable
Do criminals steal their guns? If so, we need to hold gun owners accountable for locking and securing their weapons

We cannot completely stop criminals from getting guns....but we can make it a lot harder

 

[Defiant1]

Actually..people that want responsible gun laws are in the majority.

True Americans are sick and tired of psychopaths with assault weapons killing large amounts are law abiding American Citizens.

So what do you propose we do with these psychopaths, and why should we restrict the rights of law abiding citizens who are not psychopaths?

We were able to go after drunk drivers without affecting responsible drinkers. We did not get rid of all drunk driving, but were able to cut it in half

We need a serious look at the number of gun deaths in this country and try to figure out what can be done about it. First off, we need to keep crazy people away from guns. How does that restrict your rights? Why would a responsible gun owner oppose that?

Secondly, we can look at the number of deaths from domestic violence. If you are arrested for domestic violence, you lose your guns for a week while you cool off. If you are convicted...you lose them for good

We need to look at gang violence. Where do their guns come from? If they come from secondary markets, we need to crack down on the secondary market. If they are stolen weapons, we need to go after the owners who did not secure their weapons

Saying nothing can be done is not a solution

First, who is to decide who the "crazy" people are? Do you know of a device that one can blow into that registers your current level of "craziness"? Like criminals "crazy" people don't follow the law. Are you suggesting to remove "crazy" people from the culture?

Second, I agree with people convicted of felonies not having weapons. Just being arrested, no way. Who would administer such a law? How would anyone know if and how many guns I own or have access to?

Your last item, securing weapons. Most of my weapons are never secured. They are loaded and placed where I can get to them if I need them. Either on my person or within reach.

 

[rightwinger]

So what do you propose we do with these psychopaths, and why should we restrict the rights of law abiding citizens who are not psychopaths?

We were able to go after drunk drivers without affecting responsible drinkers. We did not get rid of all drunk driving, but were able to cut it in half

We need a serious look at the number of gun deaths in this country and try to figure out what can be done about it. First off, we need to keep crazy people away from guns. How does that restrict your rights? Why would a responsible gun owner oppose that?

Secondly, we can look at the number of deaths from domestic violence. If you are arrested for domestic violence, you lose your guns for a week while you cool off. If you are convicted...you lose them for good

We need to look at gang violence. Where do their guns come from? If they come from secondary markets, we need to crack down on the secondary market. If they are stolen weapons, we need to go after the owners who did not secure their weapons

Saying nothing can be done is not a solution

First, who is to decide who the "crazy" people are? Do you know of a device that one can blow into that registers your current level of "craziness"? Like criminals "crazy" people don't follow the law. Are you suggesting to remove "crazy" people from the culture?

Second, I agree with people convicted of felonies not having weapons. Just being arrested, no way. Who would administer such a law? How would anyone know if and how many guns I own or have access to?

Your last item, securing weapons. Most of my weapons are never secured. They are loaded and placed where I can get to them if I need them. Either on my person or within reach.

Can we define and identify all crazy people? Probably not. But we can identify those who are taking anti-psychotic drugs, those under psychaitric care, those who have been recently released from institutions

If you are arrested for domestic violence, you turn in your guns as a contition of bail. If you lie and still have guns, you immediatly go back to jail. I personally do not care if a wife beater has his gun rights revoked

You don't secure your weapon and a kid gets it and kills another kid or a criminal breaks in and uses your weapon to kill someone.....YOU are responsible. I have no sympathy for you

 

[Some Guy]

President Obama made a nice speech but other than some executive orders on gun registration and sharing of information, nothing will be done by Congress

The NRA has too much influence over Congress to get any gun legislation passed. Congress may huff and puff but nothing will be done

I grew up in the 50s and 60s. Half the people smoked and it was ridiculous to think Congress could do anything about smoking. Smoking was part of our culture and the smoking lobby was very powerful
Drunk Driving killed thousands of people a year. It was accepted that nothing could be done. Drinking was part of our culture and the alcohol lobby was very strong

What changed?

It was the people who got fed up. Grass roots movements against smoking and groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving became politically powerful. Smoking and drunk driving no longer were socially acceptable. It became politically unfeasable to support smoking or lax drunk driving rules.
Public smoking was banned, drunk driving laws were made tougher and the rates of smoking and drunk driving decreased dramatically

If anything will be done on gun violence it will have to come from the American people and not the politicians. Strong grass roots movements need to rise up and say "Enough is enough". These movements need to go head to head with the NRA and support candidates who are willing to fight for stricter gun laws

Unless that happens we will see business as usual

Agreed. As fucked up as our government is, it's still a representative republic. If the will of the people is strong enough, they'll fall in line in some manner.

I think guns are different than smoking and drinking though. We'll see if the majority of people want guns to be more heavily regulated.

Edit to add: it doesn't have to be a federal issue. Look at gun laws in Chicago/Illinois vs. Louisiana. If one area wants guns more heavily controlled and others don't then great.

 

[rightwinger]

Despite all evidence the contrary, liberals believe gun control nuts are in the majority.

Actually..people that want responsible gun laws are in the majority.

True Americans are sick and tired of psychopaths with assault weapons killing large amounts are law abiding American Citizens.

And we already have responsible gun laws, and the majority knows that too. They also know that you gun control zealots true agenda is to completely disarm this nation, and don't tell us it's not. We know better.

But you're right, it's whack jobs that are shooting people up. Do something about the whack jobs and leave the damn guns alone. That's what the majority wants.

You are correct

Most gun owners are responsible and are repulsed by gun violence

As a responsible gun owner, do you oppose:

1. Background checks prior to buying a gun
2. Restricting those with certain mental issues from having guns
3. Restricting those convicted of domestic violence from having guns
4. Holding gun owners responsible for what happens with their weapons

 

[rightwinger]

Despite all evidence the contrary, liberals believe gun control nuts are in the majority.

Actually, most Americans support more gun control

Nobody is advocating confiscating your guns. However stricter controls and tracking are warranted

 

[Gadawg73]

Obama's gun proposals:
Limit magazines to 10 rounds because 20 round is more dangerous.
What a dumb ass:
10 rounds gone? 2 seconds to put in another 10 round magazine.
10 + 10 = 20.
And he has children behind him spouting this nonsense.

 

[Gadawg73]

Despite all evidence the contrary, liberals believe gun control nuts are in the majority.

Actually, most Americans support more gun control

Nobody is advocating confiscating your guns. However stricter controls and tracking are warranted

Most Americans have been wrong on how many issues over the years?
We are not a majority mob rule country.
Stricter controls do what?
How does tracking stop criminals from obtaining guns?

 

[martybegan]

The difference is neither a cigarette or a drink are useful in keeping yourself from getting killed.

The reality is people will have weapons for self protection. The more they need self protection, the more guns they will have. Every time a homeowner uses a gun to protect himself or his family, 100 more guns are sold. The woman in Georgia was probably responsible for selling thousands of guns.

You can't say that about cigarettes or alcohol.

Cigarettes, alcohol and guns are part of our culture

We couldn't ban cigarettes or alcohol same as we can never ban guns

What we, as a culture, did was make sure that cigarettes and alcohol are used responsibly. You can still smoke and drink but you are more accountable for your actions. If you smoke, you can't do it at work or inpublic areas.
If you drink, the bar will stop serving you if you are drunk or arrange a ride home. If you get caught drunk driving you will lose your licence the first time

We can't ban guns but we can make gun ownership more responsible and accountable. We can cut down on gun violence without banning them

We did it with cigarettes and alcohol

You are wrong with alcohol. Maybe drunk driving arrests are up from say the 50's and 60's, but the amount of drunk driving hasnt decreased, and among the actual drinking class, you look at a drunk driver as more of an idiot (as before) than something evil.

Look at most of your DWI arrests and you find people arrested multiple times, usually with supsended licesnes. They get busted and they go right back to it.

With smoking you are dealing with a habit that is not consituitonally protected, and impacts people around you every time you use it. Guns only impact others when some criminal uses them to commit (gasp!) a crime.

 

[Gadawg73]

Actually..people that want responsible gun laws are in the majority.

True Americans are sick and tired of psychopaths with assault weapons killing large amounts are law abiding American Citizens.

So what do you propose we do with these psychopaths, and why should we restrict the rights of law abiding citizens who are not psychopaths?

We were able to go after drunk drivers without affecting responsible drinkers. We did not get rid of all drunk driving, but were able to cut it in half

We need a serious look at the number of gun deaths in this country and try to figure out what can be done about it. First off, we need to keep crazy people away from guns. How does that restrict your rights? Why would a responsible gun owner oppose that?

Secondly, we can look at the number of deaths from domestic violence. If you are arrested for domestic violence, you lose your guns for a week while you cool off. If you are convicted...you lose them for good

We need to look at gang violence. Where do their guns come from? If they come from secondary markets, we need to crack down on the secondary market. If they are stolen weapons, we need to go after the owners who did not secure their weapons

Saying nothing can be done is not a solution

Are you comparing drunk drivers to guns?
Or cars to guns?
Where is the legislation to make it more of a crime FOR CRIMINALS TO USE GUNS?
Liberals will never do that. In fact the NY recent law LIMITS the number of rounds LAW ENFORCEMENT can have in a magazine also.

 

[rightwinger]

Despite all evidence the contrary, liberals believe gun control nuts are in the majority.

Actually, most Americans support more gun control

Nobody is advocating confiscating your guns. However stricter controls and tracking are warranted

Most Americans have been wrong on how many issues over the years?
We are not a majority mob rule country.
Stricter controls do what?
How does tracking stop criminals from obtaining guns?[/QUOTE]

Where do criminals get their guns?

Were they bought at WalMart?
Secondary gun market or resale?
Were they stolen?

If you are a responsible gun owner you should be responsible for securing your guns from theft and ensuring that you do not sell or transfer your guns to criminals

Tracking guns allows us to do that

 

[rightwinger]

The difference is neither a cigarette or a drink are useful in keeping yourself from getting killed.

The reality is people will have weapons for self protection. The more they need self protection, the more guns they will have. Every time a homeowner uses a gun to protect himself or his family, 100 more guns are sold. The woman in Georgia was probably responsible for selling thousands of guns.

You can't say that about cigarettes or alcohol.

Cigarettes, alcohol and guns are part of our culture

We couldn't ban cigarettes or alcohol same as we can never ban guns

What we, as a culture, did was make sure that cigarettes and alcohol are used responsibly. You can still smoke and drink but you are more accountable for your actions. If you smoke, you can't do it at work or inpublic areas.
If you drink, the bar will stop serving you if you are drunk or arrange a ride home. If you get caught drunk driving you will lose your licence the first time

We can't ban guns but we can make gun ownership more responsible and accountable. We can cut down on gun violence without banning them

We did it with cigarettes and alcohol

You are wrong with alcohol. Maybe drunk driving arrests are up from say the 50's and 60's, but the amount of drunk driving hasnt decreased, and among the actual drinking class, you look at a drunk driver as more of an idiot (as before) than something evil.

Look at most of your DWI arrests and you find people arrested multiple times, usually with supsended licesnes. They get busted and they go right back to it.

With smoking you are dealing with a habit that is not consituitonally protected, and impacts people around you every time you use it. Guns only impact others when some criminal uses them to commit (gasp!) a crime.

Missing the boat here pal

I am comparing drinking, smoking and guns as parts of the American culture, As such, it is unlikely we will be able to ban any of them. It does not mean that we cannot modify our culture and institute tighter controls. Just like we did with drunk driving and cigarettes

 

[Oldstyle]

Pardon me for being amused by the concept of passing additional laws to keep the mentally disturbed and criminals already breaking the law from getting weapons.

You will make it harder for law abiding citizens who obey the laws to get guns but you won't make a difference to those who have no qualms about breaking the law. Thinking that you will is simply self-delusional. One of the things that makes a school so attractive to a wack job is that they know there will not be weapons that the people who work there can use against them. That might not be the case elsewhere. People don't go shoot up police stations because cops have guns and will respond.

 

[martybegan]

Cigarettes, alcohol and guns are part of our culture

We couldn't ban cigarettes or alcohol same as we can never ban guns

What we, as a culture, did was make sure that cigarettes and alcohol are used responsibly. You can still smoke and drink but you are more accountable for your actions. If you smoke, you can't do it at work or inpublic areas.
If you drink, the bar will stop serving you if you are drunk or arrange a ride home. If you get caught drunk driving you will lose your licence the first time

We can't ban guns but we can make gun ownership more responsible and accountable. We can cut down on gun violence without banning them

We did it with cigarettes and alcohol

You are wrong with alcohol. Maybe drunk driving arrests are up from say the 50's and 60's, but the amount of drunk driving hasnt decreased, and among the actual drinking class, you look at a drunk driver as more of an idiot (as before) than something evil.

Look at most of your DWI arrests and you find people arrested multiple times, usually with supsended licesnes. They get busted and they go right back to it.

With smoking you are dealing with a habit that is not consituitonally protected, and impacts people around you every time you use it. Guns only impact others when some criminal uses them to commit (gasp!) a crime.

Missing the boat here pal

I am comparing drinking, smoking and guns as parts of the American culture, As such, it is unlikely we will be able to ban any of them. It does not mean that we cannot modify our culture and institute tighter controls. Just like we did with drunk driving and cigarettes

Driving and Drinking (even seperately) are not protected by the 2nd amendment as a right of the people. owning guns is. That creates a much higher bar (at least it is supposed to) to any restrictions on that right.

In fact, drinking can be restricted DUE to an amendment, as the states and other localities retain the right to regulate alcohol via the repeal of the Prohibition amendment.

And still, one has to remember that drunk drivers only get punished AFTER they get caught, like any other criminal. We do not restrict the speed of a person's car, nor how much they can drink. We do not have devices that prevent anyone from operating thier vehicle while drunk (unless mandated by a court order AFTER a conviction).

All of the prior restraints you want to place on law abiding gun owners are not used in the case of drunk driving OR smoking, regardless of current public opinion on them.

 

[SniperFire]

Despite all evidence the contrary, liberals believe gun control nuts are in the majority.

... and they won't begin to admit is their own doing all of the killing.

 

[rightwinger]

You are wrong with alcohol. Maybe drunk driving arrests are up from say the 50's and 60's, but the amount of drunk driving hasnt decreased, and among the actual drinking class, you look at a drunk driver as more of an idiot (as before) than something evil.

Look at most of your DWI arrests and you find people arrested multiple times, usually with supsended licesnes. They get busted and they go right back to it.

With smoking you are dealing with a habit that is not consituitonally protected, and impacts people around you every time you use it. Guns only impact others when some criminal uses them to commit (gasp!) a crime.

Missing the boat here pal

I am comparing drinking, smoking and guns as parts of the American culture, As such, it is unlikely we will be able to ban any of them. It does not mean that we cannot modify our culture and institute tighter controls. Just like we did with drunk driving and cigarettes

Driving and Drinking (even seperately) are not protected by the 2nd amendment as a right of the people. owning guns is. That creates a much higher bar (at least it is supposed to) to any restrictions on that right.

In fact, drinking can be restricted DUE to an amendment, as the states and other localities retain the right to regulate alcohol via the repeal of the Prohibition amendment.

And still, one has to remember that drunk drivers only get punished AFTER they get caught, like any other criminal. We do not restrict the speed of a person's car, nor how much they can drink. We do not have devices that prevent anyone from operating thier vehicle while drunk (unless mandated by a court order AFTER a conviction).

All of the prior restraints you want to place on law abiding gun owners are not used in the case of drunk driving OR smoking, regardless of current public opinion on them.

Totally irrelevant to the OP

 

[rightwinger]

Pardon me for being amused by the concept of passing additional laws to keep the mentally disturbed and criminals already breaking the law from getting weapons.

You will make it harder for law abiding citizens who obey the laws to get guns but you won't make a difference to those who have no qualms about breaking the law. Thinking that you will is simply self-delusional. One of the things that makes a school so attractive to a wack job is that they know there will not be weapons that the people who work there can use against them. That might not be the case elsewhere. People don't go shoot up police stations because cops have guns and will respond.

You have to have responsible ownership of guns. YOU must be responsible for how your guns are secured in your home and who they get sold to. If you sell a gun to a criminal or crazy...It is YOU who holds the resposibility

We need to dry up the supplies of guns to those who should not have them.

Why would a so called responsible gun owner object to laws that control the flow of guns to criminals?