US is now averaging more than one mass shooting per day in 2015

[beechguy]

"How may guns have you owned?

Have you had any self-defense training? If so, how many hours?

Can you disassemble and reassemble a variety of firearms?

How much time do you spend at the range?

Can you name the various parts that comprise a semi-auto pistol?

Or a semi-auto rifle?

Do you even know that basic rules of firearm safety?

Are you familiar with the Tueller drill?

Have you ever reloaded your own brass?

It's also obvious that this discussion is veiled America-bashing."

QED!

The amazing thing is this guy is so wrapped up in his guns, he has no idea he is actually part of the problem!

Amazing how many people read a few articles, and think they know something. You don't, and are oblivious to your level of ignorance.

However, if you truly are concerned, I invite you, to go to Chicago, start a door to door campaign, asking them to surrender their weapons. You may learn something.

You mean Chicago? my father's home town?....Maybe I should just get my Dad to do that.....he'll find your comments quite risible.

But you just keep on making assumptions about other posters - it just shows how poor your critical abilities actually are.

If you stopped oiling your guns and did a bit of reading yourself you might even feel the benefit.

BTW - I had a gun licence too.

I have read FBI reports, etc. and do not form my opinions solely on main stream media, not an NRA member either. I didn't make any assumptions, I formed my opinion, by the content of your posts. I doubt every citizen of Chicago agrees with you.

[Thakkar]

Why do people that know little to nothing about firearms,self-defense and Defensive Gun Uses feel the need to bloviate and post endlessly about their lack of knowledge of firearms and debate those that have a life-long knowledge of the subject and tell them they are wrong?

You are basically embarrassing yourselves.

They are not the ones who used the word bloviate.

Gun nerds blowing each other about technical minutiae is not a very meaningful discussion. Lack of technical knowledge does not disqualify anyone from expressing an opinion on this subject. You have no authority to tell another person they are wrong no matter how many bb guns you had as a sprig.

The racism expressed by US gun proponents is now unfortunately standard fare on social media. It diminishes the user and it diminishes the argument.

In other words, you don't know squat about guns yet feel you are in a position to speak of them on a expert level.

Again, stop embarrassing yourself.

Or not. It's entertaining watching people ignorant about a subject blather on and on as if they know what the hell they are talking about.

I find it amusing. At your expense.

And since when is stating the fact that about 75% of gun murders are committed by about 6% of the population, mainly black males between the ages of 15-32?

Throw out that number and the US has one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world.

Homogeneous states like Wyoming and Utah and lower gun murder rates than the UK. Gee, now what could be the reason for that, despite the fact that those states have high gun ownership?

The dirty little secret is that America doesn't have a gun problem, it has a black violence problem.

But I guess stating the truth is racist. Perhaps the truth has a racist bias.

" Perhaps the truth has a racist bias. "

Or perhaps truth is being misused to bolster a pre-existing racist bias.

Of the 33,000 or so yearly gun deaths, about 11,000 are homicides. Most of the rest are suicides with a smattering of accidents, and police shootings. But in America even "smattering" is a huge number by the standards of most of the rest of non-war zone world. Data suggests that many gun suicides and homicides could have been avoided but for the handiness of having a gun around the house. (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506 and confirmed by other studies http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/09/13/2617131/largest-gun-study-guns-murder/)

Gun advocates claim that if more people have guns then there will be less crime. The evidence is quite the opposite: more guns results in more homicides and suicides.

Death and injury data: http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html

Correlate above with Gun ownership data: http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/ (much digging around required)

The 11,000 homicides are overwhelmingly intraracial--blacks exclusively killing other blacks and whites exclusively killing other whites.

55% of the above involve black victims/perpetrators and this is disproportionate to the number of blacks (13%) in the population. (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/chapter-2-firearm-deaths/)

Crime is most often a consequence of poverty and lack of opportunity. Blacks are disproportionately poor and lack opportunity. Hundreds of years of slavery and a further hundred years of Jim Crow will leave a mark that a mere two generations of questionable "equality" cannot erase. The crime in turn exacerbates the existing poverty. Take guns out of this volatile brew, and death rates can be expected to go down-- Rather than taking blacks out of the statistics, which doesn't change the situation on the ground. Fighting crime through targeted poverty reduction is much more effective (and cheaper) than through policing or incarceration. But that's a different topic.

A good article (with data links) on guns and race is a CNN piece from 2013:

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/15/opinion/frum-guns-race/

"The gun laws intended to put guns into the hands of "good guys" are the laws that also multiply guns in the hands of "bad guys" -- bad guys who might not have become such bad guys if the guns had not been available to their hands.

The price of redefining gun violence as an issue pertaining only to "those people"{blacks} -- of casting and recasting the gun statistics to make them less grisly if only "those people" are toted under some different heading in some different ledger -- the price of that redefinition is to lose our ability to think about the problem at all."

Even if you take blacks out of the national statistics, white gun deaths (including suicides) in the U.S. are the highest among developed nations. (http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/9/e005628.full.pdf).

The usual refrain from gun advocates is that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Think about that. What they're saying is that criminals don't respect laws. Let the brilliance of that argument sink in. And by "brilliance", I of course mean "idiocy".

Laws, restrictions and sanctions affect everyone, including criminals. Otherwise, why have any laws at all? The existence of criminals is the very reason for criminal laws.

Removing legal guns from American homes will immediately reduce by a quarter million (every year!) the number of guns in the hands of criminals because that's the number of guns stolen in burglaries every year, most of which are never recovered. (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fshbopc0510.pdf)

Severely restricting gun ownership will make guns more expensive and harder to obtain, even for criminals.

No matter how you slice it, tighter gun laws = fewer guns and fewer guns = fewer gun deaths. So, again, the bottom line question is this: how many thousands of avoidable American deaths (yearly!) is your second amendment right worth?

In the absence of gun control, what we have is an ever escalating civilian arms race with no end in sight. Everyone armed to the teeth and living in constant fear is no way to go through life.

T

[beechguy]

Why do people that know little to nothing about firearms,self-defense and Defensive Gun Uses feel the need to bloviate and post endlessly about their lack of knowledge of firearms and debate those that have a life-long knowledge of the subject and tell them they are wrong?

You are basically embarrassing yourselves.

They are not the ones who used the word bloviate.

Gun nerds blowing each other about technical minutiae is not a very meaningful discussion. Lack of technical knowledge does not disqualify anyone from expressing an opinion on this subject. You have no authority to tell another person they are wrong no matter how many bb guns you had as a sprig.

The racism expressed by US gun proponents is now unfortunately standard fare on social media. It diminishes the user and it diminishes the argument.

In other words, you don't know squat about guns yet feel you are in a position to speak of them on a expert level.

Again, stop embarrassing yourself.

Or not. It's entertaining watching people ignorant about a subject blather on and on as if they know what the hell they are talking about.

I find it amusing. At your expense.

And since when is stating the fact that about 75% of gun murders are committed by about 6% of the population, mainly black males between the ages of 15-32?

Throw out that number and the US has one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world.

Homogeneous states like Wyoming and Utah and lower gun murder rates than the UK. Gee, now what could be the reason for that, despite the fact that those states have high gun ownership?

The dirty little secret is that America doesn't have a gun problem, it has a black violence problem.

But I guess stating the truth is racist. Perhaps the truth has a racist bias.

" Perhaps the truth has a racist bias. "

Or perhaps truth is being misused to bolster a pre-existing racist bias.

Of the 33,000 or so yearly gun deaths, about 11,000 are homicides. Most of the rest are suicides with a smattering of accidents, and police shootings. But in America even "smattering" is a huge number by the standards of most of the rest of non-war zone world. Data suggests that many gun suicides and homicides could have been avoided but for the handiness of having a gun around the house. (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506 and confirmed by other studies http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/09/13/2617131/largest-gun-study-guns-murder/)

Gun advocates claim that if more people have guns then there will be less crime. The evidence is quite the opposite: more guns results in more homicides and suicides.

Death and injury data: http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html

Correlate above with Gun ownership data: http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/ (much digging around required)

The 11,000 homicides are overwhelmingly intraracial--blacks exclusively killing other blacks and whites exclusively killing other whites.

55% of the above involve black victims/perpetrators and this is disproportionate to the number of blacks (13%) in the population. (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/chapter-2-firearm-deaths/)

Crime is most often a consequence of poverty and lack of opportunity. Blacks are disproportionately poor and lack opportunity. Hundreds of years of slavery and a further hundred years of Jim Crow will leave a mark that a mere two generations of questionable "equality" cannot erase. The crime in turn exacerbates the existing poverty. Take guns out of this volatile brew, and death rates can be expected to go down-- Rather than taking blacks out of the statistics, which doesn't change the situation on the ground. Fighting crime through targeted poverty reduction is much more effective (and cheaper) than through policing or incarceration. But that's a different topic.

A good article (with data links) on guns and race is a CNN piece from 2013:

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/15/opinion/frum-guns-race/

"The gun laws intended to put guns into the hands of "good guys" are the laws that also multiply guns in the hands of "bad guys" -- bad guys who might not have become such bad guys if the guns had not been available to their hands.

The price of redefining gun violence as an issue pertaining only to "those people"{blacks} -- of casting and recasting the gun statistics to make them less grisly if only "those people" are toted under some different heading in some different ledger -- the price of that redefinition is to lose our ability to think about the problem at all."

Even if you take blacks out of the national statistics, white gun deaths (including suicides) in the U.S. are the highest among developed nations. (http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/9/e005628.full.pdf).

The usual refrain from gun advocates is that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Think about that. What they're saying is that criminals don't respect laws. Let the brilliance of that argument sink in. And by "brilliance", I of course mean "idiocy".

Laws, restrictions and sanctions affect everyone, including criminals. Otherwise, why have any laws at all? The existence of criminals is the very reason for criminal laws.

Removing legal guns from American homes will immediately reduce by a quarter million (every year!) the number of guns in the hands of criminals because that's the number of guns stolen in burglaries every year, most of which are never recovered. (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fshbopc0510.pdf)

Severely restricting gun ownership will make guns more expensive and harder to obtain, even for criminals.

No matter how you slice it, tighter gun laws = fewer guns and fewer guns = fewer gun deaths. So, again, the bottom line question is this: how many thousands of avoidable American deaths (yearly!) is your second amendment right worth?

In the absence of gun control, what we have is an ever escalating civilian arms race with no end in sight. Everyone armed to the teeth and living in constant fear is no way to go through life.

T

Very few are living in constant fear, but I guess that kind of stuff just goes over your head.

By your logic, we should also send the police through the neighborhoods, and have them issue a citation to anyone, with a Corvette or other high performance car, because they think those people will break the speed limit.

[beechguy]

If someone breaks into my house in australia, even if he has a gun, it is very unlikely I will be shot because he knows I will not have a gun. In all probability just tied up while he takes what he wants. Police can deal with it later.

In US because people have guns a break and enter can have a gun death so easily.

In australia there are very few deaths from police pulling over drivers as they know the driver is very unlikely to have a gun, its usually a chat and a ticket and on your way. In the US because police must assume the worst they must consider ebery driver to be armed with a gun so it makes the police more aggressive and trigger happy so as a general rule, in a gun culture, more are shot.

Says a lot about society when even police are so scared they would rather shoot someone instaed of themselves being shot, simply because a person has a right to own a gun.

That mindset needs to change so that the norm is for the public not to have guns then the police are not prone to shoot.

If you dont have that then the police will continue to shoot for the slightest thing. A product of their own own freedom.

Not to mention how easy is is for accidental shootings by kids.

A product of their own wrongly perceived freedom that the rest of the world can see but the US is blinded by idiocy.

Yes, I'm sure a wife or daughter are on board with that, while being raped, when you're tied to a chair.

[capcc76]

Are you somehow claiming the criminals in Australia are more user friendly than criminals elsewhere?

You would rather submit both yourself and your girlfriend to the whims of some criminal than take protective action in the hopes they will just tie you up and leave?

Talk about being blinded by idiocy!

How does the number of mass shootings in australia compare to that of the US?

Then ask yourself about idiocy.

How about being overly concerned about something that does not impact you and that for which you have very little knowledge to the point creating labels and being judgmental.

Then ask yourself about idiocy.

Be ause this is a forum, its for discussion. Even an idiot would understand that.

What makes you think it does not impact me?

Your own post is judgmental. Go figure.

Awesome, then please tell us how it impacts you otherwise one might just think your being nothing more than a little bi@@@ looking for reasons to talk negatively about that which you cannot have. Hate for anyone to have that impression.

With exception of the occasional nutter that goes of the reservation every year or two, the vast majority of gun violence is very isolated and limited to bad neighborhoods full of bad people. Cracked out gang banger with nothing to lose don't think twice about shooting up a house full of people.

This is a moral issue. The vast majority of gun owners never use or have to think about using the guns in a threatening or defensive manner because they are decent, moral law abiding citizens living above the fray.

Just like average, moral, law abiding citizens don't think about strapping bombs to themselves or shooting every Christian on a bus. I suppose there are correlations with our crack house neighborhoods and the streets or Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran and etc. in that these folks won't think about harming another human being or taking a life.

You can legislate guns, but you cannot legislate away bad people with no morals and regard for human life.

Edited September 7, 2015 by capcc76

[Neurath]

The points that the obsessive - compulsive gun haters cannot understand is that:

- Most daily killings and woundings with guns in America are done in Black and Hispanic Ghettos -- and most often done with illegally acquired guns. And most of that is Black on Black Gangsta shootings ... Having NOTHING to do with the nearly 100 million legal gun owners

- Most true mass shootings are done - proven by health records -- by people who are mentally unstable ... In America it is VERY DIFFICULT - verging on the impossible to By FORCE commit a disturbed person to confinement in a mental institution for more than 72 hours. All because of Bleeding Heart Liberals who see to it that the laws remain that way. So taking dangerous people off the street and locking them up for mental health reasons cannot easily be done. Actually cannot be done in most states - nor can the patient be FORCED to undergo therapy and become successfully treated or remained confined ... So -- these nutcases are on the streets. Then through hook or crook or a hole in the system of background checks - these nutcases get a gun,...

- Almost every one of the true Mass Shootings in America for the past 15 years have been done by the mentally disturbed - mentally deranged ... We cannot get them off the streets.

- 99.99 percent of the nearly 100 million LEGAL GUN OWNERS of nearly 300 Million Guns commit NO GUN CRIMES - EVER.

- For many millions like me -- Because the LEFTISTS such as Obama have the AGENDA of total GUN Confiscation - and basically doing away with private gun ownership totally -- stripping the Constitution of the 2nd Amendment - and these Gun Haters will not relent on this GUN Confiscation AGENDA.... Then millions of us REFUSE to negotiate on one single compromise... When the LEFTISTS STOP and DROP their total gun Confiscation agenda - there may be room for compromise but not until.

- And REMEMBER --- Obama can try all the Unconstitutional Executive orders he wants -- they will be fought in the courts. And like some of his other illegal unconstitutional executive orders they will get hung up in court until he leaves office. And NO Member of the U.S. House or Representatives Nor or the U.S. Senate are going to do anything relative to Gun Control - when 100 million Voters are hanging over their heads -- ESPECIALLY in this coming Election Year - ... Members of Congress may be worthless - and crooks - but they are not stupid... They want reelection more than anything so it is used against them.

I have made predictions over several years here on TVF -- there will be NO Significant Gun Legislation in the next several years if not in the next 10 or 15 years ... basically NEVER.

Fix uneducated BLACKs - get them off drugs, get them out of the hood mentality - get them out of the poison of HIP HOP RAP that creates a criminal mindset ... GO LISTEN TO IT - the kind that is played in the hood -- it is a call to violence and crime - blared from every automobile and window in the HOOD...

Fix the SYSTEM that does not allow family and the community to COMMIT crazy people against their will ... then mass shooting will go down like a ROCK falling off a cliff.

This is a solid and instructive example of the urgent need for highly restrictive gun ownership laws. It reads like a KKK pamphlet from the 1960's as written by James Ellroy.

You really don't want to push that line about committing crazy people against their will.

[Thakkar]

In other words, you don't know squat about guns yet feel you are in a position to speak of them on a expert level.

Again, stop embarrassing yourself.

Or not. It's entertaining watching people ignorant about a subject blather on and on as if they know what the hell they are talking about.

I find it amusing. At your expense.

And since when is stating the fact that about 75% of gun murders are committed by about 6% of the population, mainly black males between the ages of 15-32?

Throw out that number and the US has one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world.

Homogeneous states like Wyoming and Utah and lower gun murder rates than the UK. Gee, now what could be the reason for that, despite the fact that those states have high gun ownership?

The dirty little secret is that America doesn't have a gun problem, it has a black violence problem.

But I guess stating the truth is racist. Perhaps the truth has a racist bias.

" Perhaps the truth has a racist bias. "

Or perhaps truth is being misused to bolster a pre-existing racist bias.

Of the 33,000 or so yearly gun deaths, about 11,000 are homicides. Most of the rest are suicides with a smattering of accidents, and police shootings. But in America even "smattering" is a huge number by the standards of most of the rest of non-war zone world. Data suggests that many gun suicides and homicides could have been avoided but for the handiness of having a gun around the house. (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506 and confirmed by other studies http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/09/13/2617131/largest-gun-study-guns-murder/)

Gun advocates claim that if more people have guns then there will be less crime. The evidence is quite the opposite: more guns results in more homicides and suicides.

Death and injury data: http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html

Correlate above with Gun ownership data: http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/ (much digging around required)

The 11,000 homicides are overwhelmingly intraracial--blacks exclusively killing other blacks and whites exclusively killing other whites.

55% of the above involve black victims/perpetrators and this is disproportionate to the number of blacks (13%) in the population. (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/chapter-2-firearm-deaths/)

Crime is most often a consequence of poverty and lack of opportunity. Blacks are disproportionately poor and lack opportunity. Hundreds of years of slavery and a further hundred years of Jim Crow will leave a mark that a mere two generations of questionable "equality" cannot erase. The crime in turn exacerbates the existing poverty. Take guns out of this volatile brew, and death rates can be expected to go down-- Rather than taking blacks out of the statistics, which doesn't change the situation on the ground. Fighting crime through targeted poverty reduction is much more effective (and cheaper) than through policing or incarceration. But that's a different topic.

A good article (with data links) on guns and race is a CNN piece from 2013:

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/15/opinion/frum-guns-race/

"The gun laws intended to put guns into the hands of "good guys" are the laws that also multiply guns in the hands of "bad guys" -- bad guys who might not have become such bad guys if the guns had not been available to their hands.

The price of redefining gun violence as an issue pertaining only to "those people"{blacks} -- of casting and recasting the gun statistics to make them less grisly if only "those people" are toted under some different heading in some different ledger -- the price of that redefinition is to lose our ability to think about the problem at all."

Even if you take blacks out of the national statistics, white gun deaths (including suicides) in the U.S. are the highest among developed nations. (http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/9/e005628.full.pdf).

The usual refrain from gun advocates is that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Think about that. What they're saying is that criminals don't respect laws. Let the brilliance of that argument sink in. And by "brilliance", I of course mean "idiocy".

Laws, restrictions and sanctions affect everyone, including criminals. Otherwise, why have any laws at all? The existence of criminals is the very reason for criminal laws.

Removing legal guns from American homes will immediately reduce by a quarter million (every year!) the number of guns in the hands of criminals because that's the number of guns stolen in burglaries every year, most of which are never recovered. (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fshbopc0510.pdf)

Severely restricting gun ownership will make guns more expensive and harder to obtain, even for criminals.

No matter how you slice it, tighter gun laws = fewer guns and fewer guns = fewer gun deaths. So, again, the bottom line question is this: how many thousands of avoidable American deaths (yearly!) is your second amendment right worth?

In the absence of gun control, what we have is an ever escalating civilian arms race with no end in sight. Everyone armed to the teeth and living in constant fear is no way to go through life.

T

Very few are living in constant fear, but I guess that kind of stuff just goes over your head.

By your logic, we should also send the police through the neighborhoods, and have them issue a citation to anyone, with a Corvette or other high performance car, because they think those people will break the speed limit.

That's right, ignore the facts in my post and focus on the snark.

Comparing cars and guns us not logic, it's anti-logic. A more apt (but still flawed) comparison would be between guns and potentially lethal medicine. Both have their legitimate uses, but only potentially lethal medicine is highly regulated and difficult to obtain and the prescription needs regular renewal.

Arguments from analogy, while fun, are hopelessly unhelpful. Both sides of the gun debate use the gun/car analogy and both are equally unhelpful.

Drawing such parallels is just a bunch of smoke and mirrors to make us feel better about our choices:

"Yes, guns are dangerous. So are household cleaners if ingested. If Kids can (and do) die from ingesting household cleaners, I should be allowed to keep my guns!"

I'll let the leftist Daily Kos and the Rightist Breitbart duke it out endlessly and uselessly on guns and cars.

T

*some non-relevent posts snipped from the thread

[beechguy]

Thakkar, not surprisingly, you missed my point. That wasn't a simple comparison of cars and guns, it was an example of someone wanting to impose unnecessary regulations, on people that are already obeying the law, just because you think they may do something wrong.

Just the same, as the ignorant think we need to ban sporting(assault to some) rifles. Never mind, that many hunting rifles are of a larger caliber, and also semi-automatic. Never mind, that hammers and blunt instruments kill more people, than all long weapons,(shotguns, hunting rifles, assault rifles if you insist) combined. All account for about 500 per year, but handguns are killing 8500-9500. (FBI Statistics). But, the one thing they generally have in common, is a criminal pulled the trigger.

[Linky]

If someone breaks into my house in australia, even if he has a gun, it is very unlikely I will be shot because he knows I will not have a gun. In all probability just tied up while he takes what he wants. Police can deal with it later.

In US because people have guns a break and enter can have a gun death so easily.

In australia there are very few deaths from police pulling over drivers as they know the driver is very unlikely to have a gun, its usually a chat and a ticket and on your way. In the US because police must assume the worst they must consider ebery driver to be armed with a gun so it makes the police more aggressive and trigger happy so as a general rule, in a gun culture, more are shot.

Says a lot about society when even police are so scared they would rather shoot someone instaed of themselves being shot, simply because a person has a right to own a gun.

That mindset needs to change so that the norm is for the public not to have guns then the police are not prone to shoot.

If you dont have that then the police will continue to shoot for the slightest thing. A product of their own own freedom.

Not to mention how easy is is for accidental shootings by kids.

A product of their own wrongly perceived freedom that the rest of the world can see but the US is blinded by idiocy.

Yes, I'm sure a wife or daughter are on board with that, while being raped, when you're tied to a chair.

I suppose you are correct. Its much better that we are killed instead, or that my daughter never grew up because when she was 5 accidently blew a hole in her head.

[cumgranosalum]

PHP87 and others who seem to have lost the plot: - the OP is about the rate of "mass-shootings" in the States.

so - with your encyclopaedic knowledge of firearms, how would you solve this problem?

Do you have a potential solution of a gun particularly suited to the job?

[chuckd]

What all this amounts to is the vast majority of the gun control enthusiasts only have a plan for removing guns from the hands of law abiding US citizens.

One went so far as to mention amnesty, ala Australia. If one considers that any person affected by an amnesty is someone that is breaking the law, they might then realize how completely foolish that idea becomes.

Legal gun owners are exactly that...legal gun owners. They have no need for amnesty since they have broken no laws.

So, let's look at amnesty for illegal gun owners. Many of them are going to reside in high crime areas where weapons are already abundant. Why would they give up their only means of self preservation just to feel all warm and cuddly about gaining amnesty?

Amnesty is a non-starter.

How about a gun buyback program. you ask?

Because historical information is they don't really work. Google is your friend.

So now what do we do? Call up the National Guard and invade Baltimore, Detroit, DC, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles et al and take the weapons away from the bad guys?

One thing to do is enforce existing laws. We don't need any more laws. There are something like 30,000 currently at work.

What we need is rigid enforcement of the laws to include mandatory prison terms for any person convicted of a crime where a weapon was involved.

That might get some of the bang banger's, drug dealers and violent illegal immigrants off the streets and send some messages to others that are contemplating a life of crime.

The other pressing problem is identifying those mentally ill individuals that might present a threat to themselves and others. Legislation could be used to require the medical profession to insure those same mental problems would be identified and treated accordingly. This particular category is where the real mass shooting are coming from.

Let's stop this ridiculous charade of disarming the legal gun owners. That isn't going anywhere.

[slipperylobster]

If there was one mass shooting every day...then it won't be long until everyone is dead...right?

[cumgranosalum]

What all this amounts to is the vast majority of the gun control enthusiasts only have a plan for removing guns from the hands of law abiding US citizens.

One went so far as to mention amnesty, ala Australia. If one considers that any person affected by an amnesty is someone that is breaking the law, they might then realize how completely foolish that idea becomes.

Legal gun owners are exactly that...legal gun owners. They have no need for amnesty since they have broken no laws.

So, let's look at amnesty for illegal gun owners. Many of them are going to reside in high crime areas where weapons are already abundant. Why would they give up their only means of self preservation just to feel all warm and cuddly about gaining amnesty?

Amnesty is a non-starter.

How about a gun buyback program. you ask?

Because historical information is they don't really work. Google is your friend.

So now what do we do? Call up the National Guard and invade Baltimore, Detroit, DC, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles et al and take the weapons away from the bad guys?

One thing to do is enforce existing laws. We don't need any more laws. There are something like 30,000 currently at work.

What we need is rigid enforcement of the laws to include mandatory prison terms for any person convicted of a crime where a weapon was involved.

That might get some of the bang banger's, drug dealers and violent illegal immigrants off the streets and send some messages to others that are contemplating a life of crime.

The other pressing problem is identifying those mentally ill individuals that might present a threat to themselves and others. Legislation could be used to require the medical profession to insure those same mental problems would be identified and treated accordingly. This particular category is where the real mass shooting are coming from.

Let's stop this ridiculous charade of disarming the legal gun owners. That isn't going anywhere.

I think it's fairly clear from this thread that in the States, it is quite possible to be mentally ill and legally own a gun.

[cumgranosalum]

Neither amnesty or medical certificates will help - I think the problem in the states or at least part of it is the shear number of guns in circulation...the country is awash with firearms compared to Australia you're talking about over ten times the population and a hundred times the amount of weaponry.......taking them away from people is going to be a tough job

[Linky]

If there was one mass shooting every day...then it won't be long until everyone is dead...right?

Depends how many births there is per day...right?

[Linky]

What all this amounts to is the vast majority of the gun control enthusiasts only have a plan for removing guns from the hands of law abiding US citizens.

One went so far as to mention amnesty, ala Australia. If one considers that any person affected by an amnesty is someone that is breaking the law, they might then realize how completely foolish that idea becomes.

Legal gun owners are exactly that...legal gun owners. They have no need for amnesty since they have broken no laws.

So, let's look at amnesty for illegal gun owners. Many of them are going to reside in high crime areas where weapons are already abundant. Why would they give up their only means of self preservation just to feel all warm and cuddly about gaining amnesty?

Amnesty is a non-starter.

How about a gun buyback program. you ask?

Because historical information is they don't really work. Google is your friend.

So now what do we do? Call up the National Guard and invade Baltimore, Detroit, DC, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles et al and take the weapons away from the bad guys?

One thing to do is enforce existing laws. We don't need any more laws. There are something like 30,000 currently at work.

What we need is rigid enforcement of the laws to include mandatory prison terms for any person convicted of a crime where a weapon was involved.

That might get some of the bang banger's, drug dealers and violent illegal immigrants off the streets and send some messages to others that are contemplating a life of crime.

The other pressing problem is identifying those mentally ill individuals that might present a threat to themselves and others. Legislation could be used to require the medical profession to insure those same mental problems would be identified and treated accordingly. This particular category is where the real mass shooting are coming from.

Let's stop this ridiculous charade of disarming the legal gun owners. That isn't going anywhere.

It worked in Oz regardless of the naysayers.

I thought the US was a 'can do' country. But despite its rhetoric it is a 'cannot do' country.

[vogie]

If there was one mass shooting every day...then it won't be long until everyone is dead...right?

Brilliant, great logic, I never thought of that. You cannot be serious.

[chuckd]

What all this amounts to is the vast majority of the gun control enthusiasts only have a plan for removing guns from the hands of law abiding US citizens.

One went so far as to mention amnesty, ala Australia. If one considers that any person affected by an amnesty is someone that is breaking the law, they might then realize how completely foolish that idea becomes.

Legal gun owners are exactly that...legal gun owners. They have no need for amnesty since they have broken no laws.

So, let's look at amnesty for illegal gun owners. Many of them are going to reside in high crime areas where weapons are already abundant. Why would they give up their only means of self preservation just to feel all warm and cuddly about gaining amnesty?

Amnesty is a non-starter.

How about a gun buyback program. you ask?

Because historical information is they don't really work. Google is your friend.

So now what do we do? Call up the National Guard and invade Baltimore, Detroit, DC, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles et al and take the weapons away from the bad guys?

One thing to do is enforce existing laws. We don't need any more laws. There are something like 30,000 currently at work.

What we need is rigid enforcement of the laws to include mandatory prison terms for any person convicted of a crime where a weapon was involved.

That might get some of the bang banger's, drug dealers and violent illegal immigrants off the streets and send some messages to others that are contemplating a life of crime.

The other pressing problem is identifying those mentally ill individuals that might present a threat to themselves and others. Legislation could be used to require the medical profession to insure those same mental problems would be identified and treated accordingly. This particular category is where the real mass shooting are coming from.

Let's stop this ridiculous charade of disarming the legal gun owners. That isn't going anywhere.

I think it's fairly clear from this thread that in the States, it is quite possible to be mentally ill and legally own a gun.

Under current privacy laws, Psychologists are not permitted to approach authorities with their opinions about a patient.

Thus any weapons clearance would have no red flag attached that an individual might be unbalanced.

Blame the medical profession for that...not the legal gun owners.

[chuckd]

What all this amounts to is the vast majority of the gun control enthusiasts only have a plan for removing guns from the hands of law abiding US citizens.

One went so far as to mention amnesty, ala Australia. If one considers that any person affected by an amnesty is someone that is breaking the law, they might then realize how completely foolish that idea becomes.

Legal gun owners are exactly that...legal gun owners. They have no need for amnesty since they have broken no laws.

So, let's look at amnesty for illegal gun owners. Many of them are going to reside in high crime areas where weapons are already abundant. Why would they give up their only means of self preservation just to feel all warm and cuddly about gaining amnesty?

Amnesty is a non-starter.

How about a gun buyback program. you ask?

Because historical information is they don't really work. Google is your friend.

So now what do we do? Call up the National Guard and invade Baltimore, Detroit, DC, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles et al and take the weapons away from the bad guys?

One thing to do is enforce existing laws. We don't need any more laws. There are something like 30,000 currently at work.

What we need is rigid enforcement of the laws to include mandatory prison terms for any person convicted of a crime where a weapon was involved.

That might get some of the bang banger's, drug dealers and violent illegal immigrants off the streets and send some messages to others that are contemplating a life of crime.

The other pressing problem is identifying those mentally ill individuals that might present a threat to themselves and others. Legislation could be used to require the medical profession to insure those same mental problems would be identified and treated accordingly. This particular category is where the real mass shooting are coming from.

Let's stop this ridiculous charade of disarming the legal gun owners. That isn't going anywhere.

It worked in Oz regardless of the naysayers.

I thought the US was a 'can do' country. But despite its rhetoric it is a 'cannot do' country.

The US "can do" only those things that are Constitutional.

Population of Australia -- 23,888,800

Population of US -------- 321,773,000

Population of California---38,802,500

Population of Texas-------26,956,958

Apples and oranges.

[Thakkar]

Thakkar, not surprisingly, you missed my point. That wasn't a simple comparison of cars and guns, it was an example of someone wanting to impose unnecessary regulations, on people that are already obeying the law, just because you think they may do something wrong.

Just the same, as the ignorant think we need to ban sporting(assault to some) rifles. Never mind, that many hunting rifles are of a larger caliber, and also semi-automatic. Never mind, that hammers and blunt instruments kill more people, than all long weapons,(shotguns, hunting rifles, assault rifles if you insist) combined. All account for about 500 per year, but handguns are killing 8500-9500. (FBI Statistics). But, the one thing they generally have in common, is a criminal pulled the trigger.

There's nothing unnecessary about imposing the strictest possible controls on what is an efficiently lethal product.

When they invent a hammer (or chair--did you know you could kill someone with a chair?) with a hairpin trigger capable of shooting a lethal projectile at the speed of sound capable of hitting someone fifty feet away, I'll call for regulation of hammers too. Because by then they wouldn't be hammers, they'd be hammerguns.

BTW, dibs on "Hammerguns" as the name of my next punk rock band.

T

[chuckd]

Thakkar, not surprisingly, you missed my point. That wasn't a simple comparison of cars and guns, it was an example of someone wanting to impose unnecessary regulations, on people that are already obeying the law, just because you think they may do something wrong.

Just the same, as the ignorant think we need to ban sporting(assault to some) rifles. Never mind, that many hunting rifles are of a larger caliber, and also semi-automatic. Never mind, that hammers and blunt instruments kill more people, than all long weapons,(shotguns, hunting rifles, assault rifles if you insist) combined. All account for about 500 per year, but handguns are killing 8500-9500. (FBI Statistics). But, the one thing they generally have in common, is a criminal pulled the trigger.

There's nothing unnecessary about imposing the strictest possible controls on what is an efficiently lethal product.

When they invent a hammer (or chair--did you know you could kill someone with a chair?) with a hairpin trigger capable of shooting a lethal projectile at the speed of sound capable of hitting someone fifty feet away, I'll call for regulation of hammers too. Because by then they wouldn't be hammers, they'd be hammerguns.

BTW, dibs on "Hammerguns" as the name of my next punk rock band.

T

"When they invent a hammer (or chair--did you know you could kill someone with a chair?) with a hairpin trigger capable of shooting a lethal projectile at the speed of sound capable of hitting someone fifty feet away, I'll call for regulation of hammers too. Because by then they wouldn't be hammers, they'd be hammerguns."

They have existed for years.

They are called "nail guns". and are available at your local Home Depot without a background check.

http://www.homedepot.com/b/Tools-Hardware-Air-Compressors-Tools-Accessories-Nail-Guns-Pneumatic-Staple-Guns/N-5yc1vZc2cd

[Tep]

What all this amounts to is the vast majority of the gun control enthusiasts only have a plan for removing guns from the hands of law abiding US citizens.

One went so far as to mention amnesty, ala Australia. If one considers that any person affected by an amnesty is someone that is breaking the law, they might then realize how completely foolish that idea becomes.

Legal gun owners are exactly that...legal gun owners. They have no need for amnesty since they have broken no laws.

So, let's look at amnesty for illegal gun owners. Many of them are going to reside in high crime areas where weapons are already abundant. Why would they give up their only means of self preservation just to feel all warm and cuddly about gaining amnesty?

Amnesty is a non-starter.

How about a gun buyback program. you ask?

Because historical information is they don't really work. Google is your friend.

So now what do we do? Call up the National Guard and invade Baltimore, Detroit, DC, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles et al and take the weapons away from the bad guys?

One thing to do is enforce existing laws. We don't need any more laws. There are something like 30,000 currently at work.

What we need is rigid enforcement of the laws to include mandatory prison terms for any person convicted of a crime where a weapon was involved.

That might get some of the bang banger's, drug dealers and violent illegal immigrants off the streets and send some messages to others that are contemplating a life of crime.

The other pressing problem is identifying those mentally ill individuals that might present a threat to themselves and others. Legislation could be used to require the medical profession to insure those same mental problems would be identified and treated accordingly. This particular category is where the real mass shooting are coming from.

Let's stop this ridiculous charade of disarming the legal gun owners. That isn't going anywhere.

It worked in Oz regardless of the naysayers.

I thought the US was a 'can do' country. But despite its rhetoric it is a 'cannot do' country.

The US "can do" only those things that are Constitutional.

Population of Australia -- 23,888,800

Population of US -------- 321,773,000

Population of California---38,802,500

Population of Texas-------26,956,958

Apples and oranges.

Thank you Chuck for consulting your friend Google and providing population statistics for Australia. I have lost track in the decades away form the place. Now perhaps you or your friend could provide some sensible explanation of what these numbers have to to with the issue. The US and Australia are more alike than different. No doubt you and others can spend days and weeks of fruitful banter picking all these apart and responding according to ideological alignment, although it does get old quite quickly actually. Those numbers are meaningless irrespective of what fruit you are eating at the moment.

Your first sentence is actually a key and relevant difference between the two countries that does not negate the proven effectiveness of the implementation of stricter gun control legislation with the use of tactics such as amnesty and buy back. I had to give up my guns when I became ineligible under the new legislation. Had I remained in Australia and remained eligible to retain my firearms license, then I would not have had to do this except for a few pieces that had to be disposed of quietly in the desert.

The real issues that pro-gun people want to talk about are the racial and socio-economic ones but they have to tie themselves in knots to avoid being obviously disgustingly bigoted. Even on these grounds, though, I don't think you can really discriminate much between Australia and the US. Australia may have a different coloured under-class but the same root causes and outcomes prevail there as they do in the US.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Tep

[Thakkar]

Thakkar, not surprisingly, you missed my point. That wasn't a simple comparison of cars and guns, it was an example of someone wanting to impose unnecessary regulations, on people that are already obeying the law, just because you think they may do something wrong.

Just the same, as the ignorant think we need to ban sporting(assault to some) rifles. Never mind, that many hunting rifles are of a larger caliber, and also semi-automatic. Never mind, that hammers and blunt instruments kill more people, than all long weapons,(shotguns, hunting rifles, assault rifles if you insist) combined. All account for about 500 per year, but handguns are killing 8500-9500. (FBI Statistics). But, the one thing they generally have in common, is a criminal pulled the trigger.

There's nothing unnecessary about imposing the strictest possible controls on what is an efficiently lethal product.

When they invent a hammer (or chair--did you know you could kill someone with a chair?) with a hairpin trigger capable of shooting a lethal projectile at the speed of sound capable of hitting someone fifty feet away, I'll call for regulation of hammers too. Because by then they wouldn't be hammers, they'd be hammerguns.

BTW, dibs on "Hammerguns" as the name of my next punk rock band.

T

"When they invent a hammer (or chair--did you know you could kill someone with a chair?) with a hairpin trigger capable of shooting a lethal projectile at the speed of sound capable of hitting someone fifty feet away, I'll call for regulation of hammers too. Because by then they wouldn't be hammers, they'd be hammerguns."

They have existed for years.

They are called "nail guns". and are available at your local Home Depot without a background check.

http://www.homedepot.com/b/Tools-Hardware-Air-Compressors-Tools-Accessories-Nail-Guns-Pneumatic-Staple-Guns/N-5yc1vZc2cd

Show me where nail guns are used in 20,000 suicides and 10,000 homicides and numerous mass shootings every year.

See, this where debate using analogies between guns and other things gradually slips into the ridiculous and don't help in finding solutions to what is a real and deadly problem.

T

[chuckd]

Thakkar, not surprisingly, you missed my point. That wasn't a simple comparison of cars and guns, it was an example of someone wanting to impose unnecessary regulations, on people that are already obeying the law, just because you think they may do something wrong.

Just the same, as the ignorant think we need to ban sporting(assault to some) rifles. Never mind, that many hunting rifles are of a larger caliber, and also semi-automatic. Never mind, that hammers and blunt instruments kill more people, than all long weapons,(shotguns, hunting rifles, assault rifles if you insist) combined. All account for about 500 per year, but handguns are killing 8500-9500. (FBI Statistics). But, the one thing they generally have in common, is a criminal pulled the trigger.

There's nothing unnecessary about imposing the strictest possible controls on what is an efficiently lethal product.

When they invent a hammer (or chair--did you know you could kill someone with a chair?) with a hairpin trigger capable of shooting a lethal projectile at the speed of sound capable of hitting someone fifty feet away, I'll call for regulation of hammers too. Because by then they wouldn't be hammers, they'd be hammerguns.

BTW, dibs on "Hammerguns" as the name of my next punk rock band.

T

"When they invent a hammer (or chair--did you know you could kill someone with a chair?) with a hairpin trigger capable of shooting a lethal projectile at the speed of sound capable of hitting someone fifty feet away, I'll call for regulation of hammers too. Because by then they wouldn't be hammers, they'd be hammerguns."

They have existed for years.

They are called "nail guns". and are available at your local Home Depot without a background check.

http://www.homedepot.com/b/Tools-Hardware-Air-Compressors-Tools-Accessories-Nail-Guns-Pneumatic-Staple-Guns/N-5yc1vZc2cd

Show me where nail guns are used in 20,000 suicides and 10,000 homicides and numerous mass shootings every year.

See, this where debate using analogies between guns and other things gradually slips into the ridiculous and don't help in finding solutions to what is a real and deadly problem.

T

You are the one that brought up "hammerguns".

I merely pointed out an instance of you not really knowing what you are talking about.

You made this claim.

"When they invent a hammer (or chair--did you know you could kill someone with a chair?) with a hairpin trigger capable of shooting a lethal projectile at the speed of sound capable of hitting someone fifty feet away, I'll call for regulation of hammers too."

I provided proof such an instrument exists so now you may start calling for the regulation of nail guns.

You also mentioned the amazing revelation that "did you know you could kill someone with a chair?"

I chose not to mention "Old Sparky" as a prime example of that particular touch of brilliance from your post.

[chuckd]

What all this amounts to is the vast majority of the gun control enthusiasts only have a plan for removing guns from the hands of law abiding US citizens.

One went so far as to mention amnesty, ala Australia. If one considers that any person affected by an amnesty is someone that is breaking the law, they might then realize how completely foolish that idea becomes.

Legal gun owners are exactly that...legal gun owners. They have no need for amnesty since they have broken no laws.

So, let's look at amnesty for illegal gun owners. Many of them are going to reside in high crime areas where weapons are already abundant. Why would they give up their only means of self preservation just to feel all warm and cuddly about gaining amnesty?

Amnesty is a non-starter.

How about a gun buyback program. you ask?

Because historical information is they don't really work. Google is your friend.

So now what do we do? Call up the National Guard and invade Baltimore, Detroit, DC, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles et al and take the weapons away from the bad guys?

One thing to do is enforce existing laws. We don't need any more laws. There are something like 30,000 currently at work.

What we need is rigid enforcement of the laws to include mandatory prison terms for any person convicted of a crime where a weapon was involved.

That might get some of the bang banger's, drug dealers and violent illegal immigrants off the streets and send some messages to others that are contemplating a life of crime.

The other pressing problem is identifying those mentally ill individuals that might present a threat to themselves and others. Legislation could be used to require the medical profession to insure those same mental problems would be identified and treated accordingly. This particular category is where the real mass shooting are coming from.

Let's stop this ridiculous charade of disarming the legal gun owners. That isn't going anywhere.

It worked in Oz regardless of the naysayers.

I thought the US was a 'can do' country. But despite its rhetoric it is a 'cannot do' country.

The US "can do" only those things that are Constitutional.

Population of Australia -- 23,888,800

Population of US -------- 321,773,000

Population of California---38,802,500

Population of Texas-------26,956,958

Apples and oranges.

Thank you Chuck for consulting your friend Google and providing population statistics for Australia. I have lost track in the decades away form the place. Now perhaps you or your friend could provide some sensible explanation of what these numbers have to to with the issue. The US and Australia are more alike than different. No doubt you and others can spend days and weeks of fruitful banter picking all these apart and responding according to ideological alignment, although it does get old quite quickly actually. Those numbers are meaningless irrespective of what fruit you are eating at the moment.

Your first sentence is actually a key and relevant difference between the two countries that does not negate the proven effectiveness of the implementation of stricter gun control legislation with the use of tactics such as amnesty and buy back. I had to give up my guns when I became ineligible under the new legislation. Had I remained in Australia and remained eligible to retain my firearms license, then I would not have had to do this except for a few pieces that had to be disposed of quietly in the desert.

The real issues that pro-gun people want to talk about are the racial and socio-economic ones but they have to tie themselves in knots to avoid being obviously disgustingly bigoted. Even on these grounds, though, I don't think you can really discriminate much between Australia and the US. Australia may have a different coloured under-class but the same root causes and outcomes prevail there as they do in the US.

You didn't understand my "apples and oranges" reference?

I apologize for using a rather common reference to making comparisons between two objects that are not similar in any manner.

I'll try and use more flowery sentence structure in the future so you won't get confused with the common man approach.

The population figures were provided to emphasize the relative differences between undertaking anything such as the gun control instituted by the Australian government in 1996 dealing with a population of something less than 30 million as opposed to dealing with a population of some 320 million. In addition, the Australian government was dealing with six states while any attempt to control weapons in the US would be dealing with 50 states and the various laws on the books of each and every one.

And that doesn't even address the Second Amendment, does it.

Apples and oranges.

[Thakkar]

@Chuckd

This whole pointless sidetrack into hammers and chairs and nail hammers began with one poster making an analogy between guns and cars, and my attempt to show the uselessness of such analogies.

I allowed myself to fall into the trap of getting sidetracked into a pointless vortex of idiocy to which I contributed.

If anyone wants to discuss the various facts and credible research data I've listed, I'm happy to engage.

For the record, I'm by default against the curtailment of any freedoms, be they sexual, privacy, speech, movement or whatever. However, many freedoms *are* curtailed to some extent or other, sometimes necessarily so and at other times, unnecessarily so.

Based on the data, and all the research I've read, I have come to the conclusion that the freedom to own guns needs severe curtailment for the greater good. If you don't agree, I respect that. I would respect it more if you could show me some good reasons that stand up to scrutiny.

T

[chuckd]

@Chuckd

This whole pointless sidetrack into hammers and chairs and nail hammers began with one poster making an analogy between guns and cars, and my attempt to show the uselessness of such analogies.

I allowed myself to fall into the trap of getting sidetracked into a pointless vortex of idiocy to which I contributed.

If anyone wants to discuss the various facts and credible research data I've listed, I'm happy to engage.

For the record, I'm by default against the curtailment of any freedoms, be they sexual, privacy, speech, movement or whatever. However, many freedoms *are* curtailed to some extent or other, sometimes necessarily so and at other times, unnecessarily so.

Based on the data, and all the research I've read, I have come to the conclusion that the freedom to own guns needs severe curtailment for the greater good. If you don't agree, I respect that. I would respect it more if you could show me some good reasons that stand up to scrutiny.

T

" I have come to the conclusion that the freedom to own guns needs severe curtailment for the greater good."

You are doing the same thing most non-Americans do. You are trying to penalize legal owners of guns for the sins of the criminal element.

More gun laws are not the solution. There are some 30,000 laws on the book now, and the criminals aren't worried about them.

They don't follow the laws, hence the word, criminals.

As I have said before on this thread...enforce the existing laws with mandatory prison sentences for any crimes committed when a firearm is used.

Get the bad guys off the streets and your violent crime rates will go down.

Uh, we might need to deport a few million of those illegals to really do a bang up job.

[capcc76]

Heck, we may need our guns and more of them with all of this talk of mass migration. Right now, we need very little protection and weapons are more of a hobby to say 99.999% of weapon owners, Hopefully, we can keep it this way, but this massive flood of people from the ME trying to migrate into the West may turn us into war zones. That is perhaps what a lot of miserable sots, like some on here, want to see.

Thank God it is election year. Otherwise Obama would be opening the flood gates. Him doing so right now would be political suicide for Hillary or Buden so he is, for once, paralyzed.

Never really thought we needed guns, but starting to rethink that position given current world events and the bad people out there trying to find ways to get in.

[Thakkar]

@Chuckd

This whole pointless sidetrack into hammers and chairs and nail hammers began with one poster making an analogy between guns and cars, and my attempt to show the uselessness of such analogies.

I allowed myself to fall into the trap of getting sidetracked into a pointless vortex of idiocy to which I contributed.

If anyone wants to discuss the various facts and credible research data I've listed, I'm happy to engage.

For the record, I'm by default against the curtailment of any freedoms, be they sexual, privacy, speech, movement or whatever. However, many freedoms *are* curtailed to some extent or other, sometimes necessarily so and at other times, unnecessarily so.

Based on the data, and all the research I've read, I have come to the conclusion that the freedom to own guns needs severe curtailment for the greater good. If you don't agree, I respect that. I would respect it more if you could show me some good reasons that stand up to scrutiny.

T

" I have come to the conclusion that the freedom to own guns needs severe curtailment for the greater good."

You are doing the same thing most non-Americans do. You are trying to penalize legal owners of guns for the sins of the criminal element.

More gun laws are not the solution. There are some 30,000 laws on the book now, and the criminals aren't worried about them.

They don't follow the laws, hence the word, criminals.

As I have said before on this thread...enforce the existing laws with mandatory prison sentences for any crimes committed when a firearm is used.

Get the bad guys off the streets and your violent crime rates will go down.

Uh, we might need to deport a few million of those illegals to really do a bang up job.

You are not addressing the reams of data and analysis based on that data that show the causes and viable options for solutions to the problem.

I agree that more robust enforcement of existing laws would help. Some of the research papers I linked to suggest that existing laws are inadequate and ineffectual. My sense from reading news stories and talks with friends involved in the matter is that various attempts to improve existing laws or introduce new ones invariably face robust opposition from the NRA and other vested interests who are resource rich and able to lobby lawmakers and organise both real as well as astro turfed grass roots campaigns that often succeed in thwarting/severely watering down all such efforts at change.

Meanwhile the (mostly) self-organised, amateur and part time citizen groups calling for change have far fewer resources, time or legislative or lobbying expertise. It's a lop-sided struggle

Saying that the problem will be successfully tackled by locking up the usual suspects is a deflection from the issue that the easy availability and plethora of firearms exacerbates existing problems--whether those problems are drugs, crime, suicide, poverty or untreated mental illness. The discussion and tackling of those issues should not preclude the discussion and tackling of the issue of a modern, largely peaceful developed country awash in lethal weapons. It can't be taken as a normal state of affairs when a developed nation such as the U.S. has, per capita, almost twice as many guns than the next nation on that list, Yemen--a country in the stone ages and in the midst of a civil war.

T

[Ulysses G.]

Huh? Yemen has less than 25 million people and America has huge numbers of legal gun owners - hunters and target shooters - who never commit a crime.