What will it take for gun lovers to say ENOUGH

[KathyK]

What is it going to take for gun apologists to admit that unfettered access to weapons is wreaking havoc on this country?
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/angry-d ... -too-slow/

Two children a week!
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... never.html

[Maryhelen]

This seems more appropriate for the Political Forum.

[KathyK]

I don't think this is a political issue. I think it's a human issue.

[WheresMyWhite]

And yet still political as it ends up being a left vs right issue just as much as anything else.

Wrecking havoc on this country??? Not sure I'm buying into that level of dramatic statement.

Unfettered access to guns??? What about all the background checks, etc that are current in place along with, depending on location, concealed or open carry restrictions?

I ask as much what on earth has gotten people to think that this level of violence is acceptable... when did that happen?? Shooting someone because they didn't show you their puppy? Shooting someone because they were driving too slow??

Seems to me there is more than guns going on. Guns have been around for many years and yet the level of violence in using them is escalating. Why?

[Pathfinder]

Due to the extreme polarization of gun topics and yada yada yada ... As soon as i figure out how to move things on this new board, this topic will go into Political Forum. Love and kisses!

[KathyK]

I believe that gun violence is strongly related to anger. And when a very angry person has easy access to a gun, there will be grieving families shortly. I also believe that open and concealed carry in public provide much greater chances for that angry someone to simply pull out his or her gun and start shooting.

[KathyK]

Due to the extreme polarization of gun topics and yada yada yada ... As soon as i figure out how to move things on this new board, this topic will go into Political Forum. Love and kisses!

I understand, but I think it's a shame. Gun violence is an important problem.

[Chancellor]

KathyK- I appreciate you wanting to talk about this topic. But, I think it will be better served here since it DOES tend to become political.

I do have one question for you and it is a genuine question without malice.
If shooting a person is already illegal, why do you think stronger gun laws would prevent people from shooting others? just because the gun is harder to get?

Thanks Pathfinder for trying. We can figure out this board together!

[PaulaO]

I have always stayed out of the political forum because I cannot articulate my thoughts. I believe handguns should be outlawed. Period. Nobody needs a gun. Period. I will cut some slack for hunters. But normal, every day people do not need guns for self-defense or to protect their homes. And certainly not for recreational use. I believe a lot of gun violence is done by people with mental health problems. Those problems are closely related.

[KathyK]

I do have one question for you and it is a genuine question without malice.
If shooting a person is already illegal, why do you think stronger gun laws would prevent people from shooting others? just because the gun is harder to get?

Yes, if guns were harder to get and illegal to carry around, open or concealed, fewer people would be shooting them. Some jackass, whoops I mean good guy, with a gun thinks a woman is driving too slowly and BLAM! he shoots her.

I also believe if someone allows another person access to his or her gun, and that person does harm with the gun, the gun owner should be held to the same degree of culpability as the shooter.

[KathyK]

I have always stayed out of the political forum because I cannot articulate my thoughts. I believe handguns should be outlawed. Period. Nobody needs a gun. Period. I will cut some slack for hunters. But normal, every day people do not need guns for self-defense or to protect their homes. And certainly not for recreational use. I believe a lot of gun violence is done by people with mental health problems. Those problems are closely related.

There is emerging research that says gun violence is more closely related to anger than to mental illness. That's pretty scary because a small portion of the population is mentally ill, but every one of us gets angry.

[Chancellor]

I do have one question for you and it is a genuine question without malice.
If shooting a person is already illegal, why do you think stronger gun laws would prevent people from shooting others? just because the gun is harder to get?

Yes, if guns were harder to get and illegal to carry around, open or concealed, fewer people would be shooting them. Some jackass, whoops I mean good guy, with a gun thinks a woman is driving too slowly and BLAM! he shoots her.

I also believe if someone allows another person access to his or her gun, and that person does harm with the gun, the gun owner should be held to the same degree of culpability as the shooter.

We are obviously on opposite sides of this topic but I agree with your last statement too.
FYI, I am not a gun owner at all but I do believe in being allowed to have them.
So, okay, your example of the driving too slowly, I might want to do that to people every day on my commute but I know that in my heart, this is wrong.
And I wouldn't do it. (I might however, flip said woman off if she is plopping along in the fast lane)
I think that making gun laws stricter is a good idea. I don't think outlawing them is a proper answer, however.

[khall]

Yep, woman driving too slow http://www.ajc.com/news/news/breaking-n ... n-d/nnz4x/.

I grew up with guns in the house, still have them both hand guns and long guns, but I do think more gun control should be in practice. Not sure how it will or if it ever will come about. NRA is a powerful lobbyist and I do not think what happened in Australia will ever occur here. I do not think arming kindergartner teaches is an answer by any means!

BTW the reason we have one of our hand guns is because we have rattle snakes on our farm. One of my horses has been bitten before by a big one (fang marks 2 in apart) and my DS almost stepped on a yearling rattlesnake, came within 6 in and he was barefoot. Have snake shot loads for it. Have used it several times to kill poisonous snakes.

We have long guns for other critters if needed. Lots of coyotes around. Just a month ago one of my dogs and a coyote had a stand off, coyote was not scared of my dog and he is 96 lbs. Have also had a rabid fox attack two of my horses before, so long guns are necessary here on the farm.

[PaulaO]

khall, I now understand the need for farmers/ranchers to have guns for critter control. You spelled it out quite nicely.

I don't believe more gun control will help decrease shootings. Most of these idiots shooting each other are doing it with illegally obtained guns.

[Moutaineer]

I am originally from England where we have very stringent gun control laws. I now live in Utah...

I grew up on a farm. We had shotguns and hunting rifles. Our guns had to be licensed and registered with the local police station and had to be kept in a locked cabinet. After Hungerford, the police would come round once a year and check that we were following the rules. If we weren't, then our guns would be confiscated.

Handguns, just no. If you were a target shooter your pistol had to stay at the gun club.

If you lost your temper with someone, you didn't have access to a gun so you were unlikely to shoot someone. Beat them up, knife them? Sure, but far less likely to kill them or bystanders.

Guns were unusual, so their presence would be noted and anyone toting a gun around in an unusual place would be obviously a bad guy.

Do criminals have them? To be sure, but they are far harder to get hold of and so your average petty criminal isn't likely to have access.

Of course, also, our police force is largely unarmed (not as unarmed as many think, however,) so police shootings are really quite rare.

The problem here is that the genie is out of the bottle. So many unregistered and unknown weapons floating around, I can't see a way of controlling access to them by the criminal classes.

But I do think that it should be harder for Joe Blow to go and buy a gun in Walmart, and I do think that the rules for keeping guns safely locked up should be stronger and more stringently policed. At least that would stop little kids from shooting each other and make people have to think in order to access them.

I also think that if a kid gets access to your firearm because you left it in your unlocked bedside drawer, and kills his little buddy with it, you should be charged with murder.

I always liked Chris Rock's solution to the problem. Make ammunition prohibitively expensive...

[Moutaineer]

So, okay, your example of the driving too slowly, I might want to do that to people every day on my commute but I know that in my heart, this is wrong.
And I wouldn't do it. (I might however, flip said woman off if she is plopping along in the fast lane)

My hope then is that she is not the angry person with the gun...

[dasher]

Anger and violence is rampant in this country. Self control is lacking.
Why is it necessary to flip someone off if they are driving like a stupid person? Does it resolve the issue of them driving like a stupid person, or does it make the flipper feel better?

I don't see pulling the trigger of a gun as a violent act. The resulting carnage is.
Hitting someone over the head with a baseball bat is a violent act.
Stabbing someone with a butcher knife is a violent act.
Twitching one's finger on the trigger of a gun is not a violent act (in my opinion).
I think there is a disconnect between the action and the result in some people's mind.
Pulling a trigger is the lazy, coward man's way.

[WheresMyWhite]

If you lost your temper with someone, you didn't have access to a gun so you were unlikely to shoot someone. Beat them up, knife them?

Mountaineer, you make an interesting comment here about loosing your temper and maybe beating someone up or using a knife if a gun wasn't accessible.

Seems to me like this is one of the cruxes of the problem... loosing your temper shouldn't result in anything like beating someone up or knifing them.

What happened to self-control? Taking a deep breath? Figuring that for just about any situation, it wasn't worth loosing your temper.

[myleetlepony]

What happened to self-control? Taking a deep breath? Figuring that for just about any situation, it wasn't worth loosing your temper.

I believe these things went out the door when we became an "instant gratification" society. You no longer have to wait for the store to open in the morning to go get something, everyone is instantly accessible via cell phone, text message or social media, shopping and information look-up is at our fingertips within 10 seconds, movies and music are instant downloads, etc. Heck, with Amazon Prime, you don't have to get ready to go anywhere and can usually have what ever you want delivered within 12hrs!

I think all of these things have lead to general narcissism as well as a total disregard for personal responsibility. With a *right* comes a *responsibility* to that right.

After Hungerford, the police would come round once a year and check that we were following the rules. If we weren't, then our guns would be confiscated.

I believe this would fall under illegal search and seizure. IIRC, this is covered in our BoR.

[Avola]

Seems to me like this is one of the cruxes of the problem... loosing your temper shouldn't result in anything like beating someone up or knifing them.

Oh for Pete's sake. People lose their temper. People get in fights. It happens all the time all over the world.
The difference is that getting into a fight, while philosophically debatable as a solution to any problem, does not mean you get your gun and shoot someone in other countries because guns aren't so readily available and ammunition isn't sold at the local convenience store. The gun culture in this country is so Freudian is ridiculous.

[WheresMyWhite]

I believe this would fall under illegal search and seizure. IIRC, this is covered in our BoR.

Yes, 4th amendment...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[Chancellor]

So, okay, your example of the driving too slowly, I might want to do that to people every day on my commute but I know that in my heart, this is wrong.
And I wouldn't do it. (I might however, flip said woman off if she is plopping along in the fast lane)

My hope then is that she is not the angry person with the gun...

That's a very good point!!!

The instant gratification society is also a good point! That probably IS part of the problem.
My older hunter coach called me part of the "instant coffee" generation. No one wants to wait anymore (although living in the country, Amazon Prime delivers in two days not 12 hours for me).

[Tabby]

I do have one question for you and it is a genuine question without malice.
If shooting a person is already illegal, why do you think stronger gun laws would prevent people from shooting others?

Because it has worked in every single country that has stronger gun laws.

[Chancellor]

I do have one question for you and it is a genuine question without malice.
If shooting a person is already illegal, why do you think stronger gun laws would prevent people from shooting others?

Because it has worked in every single country that has stronger gun laws.

How do you know? Care to give an example? Has any country gone from "weak" gun laws to stronger gun laws and seen a decrease in crime?
And I sincerely don't know the answer to that question.

Simply saying, "Norway has strong gun laws and they don't have a lot of gun violence"....is not enough. You need to compare apples to apples. Norway also has a much smaller population than the US. (I'm just throwing Norway out there...I have no idea if they have stronger gun laws than us or if they have a lower rate of gun violence).

Also, let's say we make all handguns illegal today. How do we get the ones out there already off the streets?

[Crisscreek]

Well dang, my carefully craft post disappeared-I didn't hit submit!

From north of the border, there are things I simply don't understand about this discussion. Seems to me that every few months, after a mass shooting, the discussion starts up again re "motivation". As worthy a discussion as this is, why the reluctance to attempt to legislate some solutions? For example-if there were no speed limits, and speeders were routinely killing people, would we not take action? Legislation while also discussing motivation?

I am a Canadian gun owner-we have long guns, and I own two handguns. I am licenced, and my guns are stored. I have no problem acquiring more, and no problem using them when I need/want to on my property or at a range. My neighbours (such as they are) are also gun owners. When I lived in town, those neighbours were gun owners. I never worried one of them would shoot me! I actually take comfort knowing that they are also licenced, investigated, and law abiding citizens. Yes, we still have gun crime, but nothing like seems to happened south of us.

Is this a basic philosophical Canada/US difference "Peace, order and good government" vs "the right to pursue happiness"?

[Alex]

What's even worse about the whole temperament and psychological and psychiatric aspects of gun ownership and gun access is that I believe children are now learning how guns can resolve issues. They learn about it on TV and they learn about it in our newspapers and newscasts and on the radio. There's no way for them not to hear about shootings and the reasons behind shootings.

One 11-year old shot an 8-year old over not being introduced to HER PUPPY! He'd shown her his puppy and he asked his trailer park neighbor to show him her new puppy. When she refused (they'd had previous run-ins), he shot her pointblank w/a shotgun.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... uppy.html#

[outsiderein]

Is this a basic philosophical Canada/US difference "Peace, order and good government" vs "the right to pursue happiness"?

Well said Cc, and I fear that the answer to your question is yes. I wish that were not the case.

[saltheart]

"Most of these idiots shooting each other are doing it with illegally obtained guns." Sad to say, this is false. Maybe in ganster infested inner cities, but the mass shootings recently have all been with legally obtained firearms.

WMW - I didn't know you were a Constitutional scholar. Or are you just a fan of the 4th Amendment because you believe it gives you an out if the evil government should ever try to come and take your guns?

[Tabby]

I do have one question for you and it is a genuine question without malice.
If shooting a person is already illegal, why do you think stronger gun laws would prevent people from shooting others?

Because it has worked in every single country that has stronger gun laws.

How do you know? Care to give an example? Has any country gone from "weak" gun laws to stronger gun laws and seen a decrease in crime?
And I sincerely don't know the answer to that question

The best example is Australia where they actually bought guns back. It has been discussed before so many times I have a hard time believing you don't know.

Regarding search and seizure, there are exceptions but they are fairly specific. Generally they are not conducted by police (at least not in Canada) but other peace officers to ensure compliance to various non-criminal laws (eg environmental or industrial). These officers have the power of search and seizure. The US has something similar and if I recall correctly their officers had a little more power than ours.

[Chancellor]

Tabby, I haven't frequented the UDBB for awhile nor the political forum much before that so I really DON'T know.

[WheresMyWhite]

WMW - I didn't know you were a Constitutional scholar. Or are you just a fan of the 4th Amendment because you believe it gives you an out if the evil government should ever try to come and take your guns?

I don't know that I would consider myself a 'Constitutional scholar" (actually, not sure what one is exactly) but I do read and re-read the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) as they were amended to the Constitution when the Constitution was signed and were intended to provide for the rights of individuals over state or federal rights.

Yes, I do believe in the 4th that it would cover the feds coming to take my guns (assuming I have any in my possession). They can come and ask but they may not come in without a warrant. That warrant better have substantive probable cause that I have gun(s) in my possession. Sure, the feds can "destroy" the 4th like they have done with wire taps, etc. in the name of terrorists and homeland security.

One can say that the feds would never try to forcibly confiscate guns from the populace but it could happen...

[CanadianTrotter]

I believe that gun violence is strongly related to anger. And when a very angry person has easy access to a gun, there will be grieving families shortly. I also believe that open and concealed carry in public provide much greater chances for that angry someone to simply pull out his or her gun and start shooting.

I very much agree with this but would add a few things.

I also believe gun violence is strongly related to anger and also dysfunction, but I think paranoia/fear, ignorance/lack of gun education and lack of personal responsibility are the main reasons behind how the angry people have and use guns for violence.

[CanadianTrotter]

I have always stayed out of the political forum because I cannot articulate my thoughts.

I believe a lot of gun violence is done by people with mental health problems. Those problems are closely related.

That simply is not true. Yes, some gun violence cases are caused by people with mental illnesses. They are usually the ones that get the most media hype, which is why many of the other cases get buried or seem insignificant.

But I am really glad to see you contibute to the PF!!!!

[CanadianTrotter]

What's even worse about the whole temperament and psychological and psychiatric aspects of gun ownership and gun access is that I believe children are now learning how guns can resolve issues. They learn about it on TV and they learn about it in our newspapers and newscasts and on the radio. There's no way for them not to hear about shootings and the reasons behind shootings.

Our Canadian children watch/see/hear everything your children do...

[CanadianTrotter]

I do have one question for you and it is a genuine question without malice.
If shooting a person is already illegal, why do you think stronger gun laws would prevent people from shooting others?

Because it has worked in every single country that has stronger gun laws.

How do you know? Care to give an example? Has any country gone from "weak" gun laws to stronger gun laws and seen a decrease in crime?
And I sincerely don't know the answer to that question.

Just recently.... Australia?

[CanadianTrotter]

"Most of these idiots shooting each other are doing it with illegally obtained guns." Sad to say, this is false. Maybe in ganster infested inner cities, but the mass shootings recently have all been with legally obtained firearms.

WMW - I didn't know you were a Constitutional scholar. Or are you just a fan of the 4th Amendment because you believe it gives you an out if the evil government should ever try to come and take your guns?

WMW quoted, "unreasonable search and seizures"... so if they deem it "reasonable" they can still perform the search and seizure without a warrant?

[WheresMyWhite]

WMW quoted, "unreasonable search and seizures"... so if they deem it "reasonable" they can still perform the search and seizure without a warrant?

CT, my quote wasn't really mine. It was the actual wording of the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution.

I am not aware of warrantless searches of physical property. There have been cases of warrantless "searches" in the name of domestic terrorist/homeland security (oh, and all that "data collection" that the beloved NSA does with cell phone data).

For the most part, the warrant must state the probable cause (what are you looking for and why) for the search and it must be signed by a judge and is good for usually only a few days. When you watch entertaining shows like Law & Order, what you see isn't always "legal" in the real world; but it sure makes for entertaining TV

I am NOT an attorney nor a constitutional scholar, just making a few observations that could easily have some cases which contradict what I said.

[CanadianTrotter]

WMW quoted, "unreasonable search and seizures"... so if they deem it "reasonable" they can still perform the search and seizure without a warrant?

CT, my quote wasn't really mine. It was the actual wording of the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution.

I am not aware of warrantless searches of physical property. There have been cases of warrantless "searches" in the name of domestic terrorist/homeland security (oh, and all that "data collection" that the beloved NSA does with cell phone data).

Yes, that's why I said, "WMW quoted".

I was simply pointing out that the actual wording of your 4th Amendment states... "unreasonable seach and seizure", which means if they find it "reasonable" they could proceed without a warrant.

[BlueMayPop]

Kathy, I'm afraid no amount of carnage will be enough because we are dealing with fanatics. We will have to have a ground-roots campaign that will overwhelm the gun fanatics. As with many such issues, it will take a lot of education and a change of consciousness before anything substantial is done.

As conservative SCOTUS justice Warren Burger once said:

“A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... z3obJH91cv

[myleetlepony]

I was simply pointing out that the actual wording of your 4th Amendment states... "unreasonable seach and seizure", which means if they find it "reasonable" they could proceed without a warrant.

Yes, there may be reasonable search and seizure without a warrant. That would fall under the realm of if you were pulled over and the officer had reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe you had a firearm in the car without proper licensing or carry permits. It could also fall under the situation of officers in your house for a domestic or other type of report and they have reason to believe (their own, not an anonymous tip) you have a firearm in your home illegally (for instance, a box of ammo on the table).

However, officials just randomly knocking on your door to check to see if you have firearms and/or store them a certain way would not be probable cause or reasonable.

[xhltsalute]

Because it has worked in every single country that has stronger gun laws.

How do you know? Care to give an example? Has any country gone from "weak" gun laws to stronger gun laws and seen a decrease in crime?
And I sincerely don't know the answer to that question.

Just recently.... Australia?

Yes, in 1996 after the Port Arthur massacre, to be exact.

Executive Summary

The sale, possession, and use of firearms are regulated by the Australian states and territories, with cross-border trade matters addressed at the federal level. In 1996, following the Port Arthur massacre, the federal government and the states and territories agreed to a uniform approach to firearms regulation, including a ban on certain semiautomatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns, standard licensing and permit criteria, storage requirements and inspections, and greater restrictions on the sale of firearms and ammunition. Firearms license applicants would be required to take a safety course and show a “genuine reason” for owning a firearm, which could not include self-defense. The reasons for refusing a license would include “reliable evidence of a mental or physical condition which would render the applicant unsuitable for owning, possessing or using a firearm.” A waiting period of twenty-eight days would apply to the issuing of both firearms licenses and permits to acquire each weapon.

Alongside legislative reforms to implement the National Firearms Agreement, a national buyback program for prohibited weapons took place in 1996-1997 and resulted in more than 700,000 weapons being surrendered. Further reforms were later implemented as a result of agreements made in 2002 on firearms trafficking and handguns, as was a national buyback of newly prohibited handguns and associated parts.

A large amount of information and analysis is available regarding the number of firearms in Australia and their use in crimes or incidents resulting in death. The most recent relevant report of the Australian Institute of Criminology states that the “number of victims of firearm-perpetrated homicide (i.e. murder and manslaughter) has declined by half between 1989–90 and 2009–10 from 24 to 12 percent.” Recent reports have also examined the number of illicit firearms and firearm thefts in Australia. Among the activities relating to gun control that took place in 2012 was the signing of a new intergovernmental agreement to tackle illicit firearms and firearms trafficking.

For more information: http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-co ... tralia.php

[CanadianTrotter]

How do you know? Care to give an example? Has any country gone from "weak" gun laws to stronger gun laws and seen a decrease in crime?
And I sincerely don't know the answer to that question.

Just recently.... Australia?

Yes, in 1996 after the Port Arthur massacre, to be exact.

Executive Summary

The sale, possession, and use of firearms are regulated by the Australian states and territories, with cross-border trade matters addressed at the federal level. In 1996, following the Port Arthur massacre, the federal government and the states and territories agreed to a uniform approach to firearms regulation, including a ban on certain semiautomatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns, standard licensing and permit criteria, storage requirements and inspections, and greater restrictions on the sale of firearms and ammunition. Firearms license applicants would be required to take a safety course and show a “genuine reason” for owning a firearm, which could not include self-defense. The reasons for refusing a license would include “reliable evidence of a mental or physical condition which would render the applicant unsuitable for owning, possessing or using a firearm.” A waiting period of twenty-eight days would apply to the issuing of both firearms licenses and permits to acquire each weapon.

Alongside legislative reforms to implement the National Firearms Agreement, a national buyback program for prohibited weapons took place in 1996-1997 and resulted in more than 700,000 weapons being surrendered. Further reforms were later implemented as a result of agreements made in 2002 on firearms trafficking and handguns, as was a national buyback of newly prohibited handguns and associated parts.

A large amount of information and analysis is available regarding the number of firearms in Australia and their use in crimes or incidents resulting in death. The most recent relevant report of the Australian Institute of Criminology states that the “number of victims of firearm-perpetrated homicide (i.e. murder and manslaughter) has declined by half between 1989–90 and 2009–10 from 24 to 12 percent.” Recent reports have also examined the number of illicit firearms and firearm thefts in Australia. Among the activities relating to gun control that took place in 2012 was the signing of a new intergovernmental agreement to tackle illicit firearms and firearms trafficking.

For more information: http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-co ... tralia.php

As far as I'm concerned, Australia has set an excellent example of how and why gun deaths/violence can be significantly lessened and lowered.

I see absolutely no reason why the US cannot or will not follow suit and I sincerely hope they do... the sooner the better.

I remember a poster on another board saying that they believed their country(the US) to be an embarrassment because it is a first world country with a third world country's behaviour.

[carpevita]

khall, I now understand the need for farmers/ranchers to have guns for critter control. You spelled it out quite nicely.

I don't believe more gun control will help decrease shootings. Most of these idiots shooting each other are doing it with illegally obtained guns.

lets be clear we have a few separate issues here.
1) mass murders
2) gangs and bad guys shooting at each other
3) careless asshats who leave guns where kids can access them.

Three distinct problems call for three distinct solutions---or do they?
Making gun sales much more stringent is fine by me. I would undergo mental health screening if I wanted to buy a gun, but given my medical history may not be approved. I've had both depression and anxiety in my life, yet I am confidant I am not capable of murder--so how do we pin point those who might have murderous intent?

Guns in the cities are another biggie---bad guys using them against each other (with innocents as collateral damage) seems to be the biggest problem some areas endure----I think BIG amnesty payouts will help, and making ammunition very expensive will too.

As for the idiots who leave guns out near kids, on one level I feel their guilt and grief may be enough punishment in some cases, its clearly not enough in many others. So jail time and huge fines may work.
I'm not sure if I support required insurance for gun owners/purchasers, as I despise insurance companies in general---but in this instance they could make the difference.

[CanadianTrotter]

khall, I now understand the need for farmers/ranchers to have guns for critter control. You spelled it out quite nicely.

I don't believe more gun control will help decrease shootings. Most of these idiots shooting each other are doing it with illegally obtained guns.

lets be clear we have a few separate issues here.
1) mass murders
2) gangs and bad guys shooting at each other
3) careless asshats who leave guns where kids can access them.

Three distinct problems call for three distinct solutions---or do they?
Making gun sales much more stringent is fine by me. I would undergo mental health screening if I wanted to buy a gun, but given my medical history may not be approved. I've had both depression and anxiety in my life, yet I am confidant I am not capable of murder--so how do we pin point those who might have murderous intent?

Guns in the cities are another biggie---bad guys using them against each other (with innocents as collateral damage) seems to be the biggest problem some areas endure----I think BIG amnesty payouts will help, and making ammunition very expensive will too.

As for the idiots who leave guns out near kids, on one level I feel their guilt and grief may be enough punishment in some cases, its clearly not enough in many others. So jail time and huge fines may work.
I'm not sure if I support required insurance for gun owners/purchasers, as I despise insurance companies in general---but in this instance they could make the difference.

I don't believe everyone that kills has "murderous intent" until a situation happens to turn them to that way of thinking. Which is why I am for mental health checks and that even something as fleeting as depression/anxiety needs to be taken into account. I also believe how much/often a person drinks alcohol should be taken into account. The one good thing that could come out of legalizing marijuana would be that the user would be in the system and hopefully denied gun ownership as well.

For the illegal guns/bad guys... hire more LEO's and come down on them like Hell Hath No Fury...

As for the bad parents... I don't think there is enough punishment that could be dealt to them. Their feelings of guilt and grief are a bit too late as far as I'm concerned.

Concerning insurance, I don't care how it makes the holder feel... only that it would help anyone possibly killed,injured or affected by their guns.

[Tabby]

Tabby, I haven't frequented the UDBB for awhile nor the political forum much before that so I really DON'T know.

My sincere apologies Chancellor. I am just frustrated at the number of times the data has been put forth and then denied.

In addition to the Australian example given (thanks, btw), there are also plenty of examples within the US comparing regional gun control laws. The most striking are the studies on suicides. Here's a link with a list of studies and links to them: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firea ... p-and-use/.

Basically it is pretty clear - control guns, reduce gun crime and other gun deaths. I'm sure there are a lot of indirect ways you can tackle individual issues (suicide, gang murders etc.), but all of it can be done with gun control.

[Chancellor]

I will certainly have to look into that Tabby. And I will (maybe not for awhile though). At least that shows promise of having compared apples to apples as Australia is at least a large country size wise although I think population wise it is smaller.
I shied away from the political forum on UDBB after awhile since I never felt like I was changing anyone's mind and I was in the minority (since I am more right leaning). However, now that I am hosting and moderating, I have to venture in here! Hopefully Pathfinder will help me with that too!

Despite the fact that I lean more to the right than the left, I do think more gun control is a good idea.. Not to the point of taking away all handguns or anything like that though.

[Tabby]

There are lots of models to look at in a variety of countries. We have strict gun control in Canada but people still have guns including hand guns. We just don't have them laying around our homes and vehicles and nobody is carrying them around in public places.

[WheresMyWhite]

Yes, there may be reasonable search and seizure without a warrant. That would fall under the realm of if you were pulled over and the officer had reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe you had a firearm in the car without proper licensing or carry permits. It could also fall under the situation of officers in your house for a domestic or other type of report and they have reason to believe (their own, not an anonymous tip) you have a firearm in your home illegally (for instance, a box of ammo on the table).

But, would this be a "search" based on officer safety rather than "reasonable search and seizure without a warrant"?

If there is no gun or ammunition or any other gun-related equipment in plain view, I don't think the vehicle could be searched, could it?

Items in plain view are "discoverable" but again in the DV instance, would that be "reasonable" or would that be "officer safety"?

In both the vehicle and residence, would that reasonable search without a warrant cover anything illegal found, such as drugs. Most cases I am familiar with in a vehicle stop, a person can be patted down for officer safety but if drugs are discovered, you need to get the person to admit they are drugs or they are not discoverable.

Some of this is also covered under state law as different states may allow different types of searches within the bounds of the Constitution.

[Moutaineer]

If you agreed to the terms of inspection and potential seizure of an improperly stored weapon when you were issued your gun license, I can't see how it would be an issue.

[WheresMyWhite]

I would personally have an issue with "inspection" of my property (residence/vehicle). If this meant I wouldn't buy a gun, I probably wouldn't as I am not about to accept LE into my home to inspect anything. And if not LE, no way am I allowing someone in to "inspect" anything.

Would *you* allow the entrance into your home and "inspection" (of whatever they might find) at their whim if you bought a gun? I suspect you have no intention of purchasing a gun but would you agree to such an inspection?

We don't do that to operate a motor vehicle (with exception for things like informed consent which is DUI suspicion related).