What will it take for gun lovers to say ENOUGH

[Tabby]

Who needs terrorism? A young man walked into a school and shot 20 5-year olds. Who cares where he came from? Why is it suddenly worse now? I'd suggest that it isn't as bad but that's just me.

[Tabby]

Canada had a mass shooting once. This is what we do to commemorate it: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/ ... -1.3352913. There are so many in the US there could never by this level of ceremony.

[Tsuy]

https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrat ... 3/?theater

Can anyone tell me what the number has to be before Changes need to be made ?
Is every other day, enough or Is every day enough,
when it gets to maybe several a day - is that enough
Can a NRA supported tell me when is enough

[emmalou]

I kept wondering where that 355 number came from.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opini ... .html?_r=0

While I think gang violence, domestic violence, etc victims lives are just as valuable, I also think comparing these incidents with situations like Charleston, PP, SB muddy the waters of the gun discussion.

[Tabby]

I don't think so. Gun violence is gun violence. Countries with gun control have lower incidences of gun related gang violence, domestic violence and suicides as well. The gun is the common them in all.

[boots-aregard]

How much of the relentless pointing fingers at muslims and demonizing them helps in making them feel they are our enemy. He may have originally been one of us but with the constant hatred directed at them in what is supposedly their own country why wouldn't their allegiance be damaged. Not an excuse, obviously as some will claim. Pointing out the reasons behind something is not excusing it.

Constant hatred? Do you think Muslims are discriminated against any more than women, hispanics, blacks, non-muslim arabs?

I don't know if, when one is on the receiving end of the finger pointing, one considers how much it happens to other people that it shouldn't happen to.

Certainly, when I am dismissed for being female by some dolt, I don't pause and think, "He's probably a dolt to hispanics, too." I don't CARE if he's a dolt to hispanics, too. I call him out for being a dolt to _me_.

On the other hand, I don't get a gun and shoot him, so there are differences there.

[WheresMyWhite]

I don't think so. Gun violence is gun violence. Countries with gun control have lower incidences of gun related gang violence, domestic violence and suicides as well. The gun is the common them in all.

I would disagree that the gun is the "common theme". While it is true that you, and correctly so, cite countries with gun control having lower incidents of gun related violence, what is not, IN MY OPINION, taken into consideration are cultural and criminal justice considerations in those countries. In many countries the sentence for using a gun, gun control or not, is much stronger than in this country. Gun control does not exist in a vacuum.

[Tabby]

Maybe I wasn't quite clear. I meant that the gun is the common theme among those types of violence listed (gang, domestic, mass shooting as well as suicides - which was my addition to the list).

Cultural and criminal justice considerations are clearly important also and intimately related to gun control. Using your example of sentencing, this would fall under mechanisms of gun control (e.g. stiffer penalties for violating gun laws) and may be part of a potential solution. Cultural differences are trickier - few countries have rights to bear arms written right into their constitutions. But America has overcome a lot more difficult cultural issues in the past (ending segregation, women voting, more recently gay marriage etc.). Popular polls show that most Americans want better gun control. It is a good time to look at it seriously.

[myleetlepony]

I don't think so. Gun violence is gun violence. Countries with gun control have lower incidences of gun related gang violence, domestic violence and suicides as well. The gun is the common them in all.

Ok, so let's reverse this a little...

Considering the shear amount of illegal guns currently on the street, how do we *get back* the guns that are used in gang violence, domestic cases and suicides? How do we get them out of the hands of the "gang bangers" doing drive-bys? How do we get them out of the hands of husbands/wives that have violent tendencies but because their partner won't report it, they are otherwise known as perfect law-abiding citizens? How do we get them out of the hands of the person who is contemplating suicide but is the classic case of nobody knowing how close they are?

Frankly, you could close the barn doors after the guns were let out by banning any further firearm sales but that still won't solve the problem. Heck, you could take it a step further and require all the law-abiding gun owners to turn over their firearms tomorrow and many of them will. That, however, does not solve the problem of the violent people that will still use what is left in their possession, and next week there will be 15 more homicides in Chicago alone.

I'm sorry, but while guns may have a part in this problem, there is a MUCH bigger underlying problem that needs to be solved. I'm not sure what it is exactly, or what the solution is, but I don't think restricting responsible people is the answer.

FWIW, I think we would have many more incidents of homemade bombs used in mass killings if guns were restricted. Most active shooter incidents included bombs of some sort.

[boots-aregard]

I don't think so. Gun violence is gun violence. Countries with gun control have lower incidences of gun related gang violence, domestic violence and suicides as well. The gun is the common them in all.

Ok, so let's reverse this a little...

Considering the shear amount of illegal guns currently on the street, how do we *get back* the guns that are used in gang violence, domestic cases and suicides? How do we get them out of the hands of the "gang bangers" doing drive-bys? How do we get them out of the hands of husbands/wives that have violent tendencies but because their partner won't report it, they are otherwise known as perfect law-abiding citizens? How do we get them out of the hands of the person who is contemplating suicide but is the classic case of nobody knowing how close they are?

Frankly, you could close the barn doors after the guns were let out by banning any further firearm sales but that still won't solve the problem. Heck, you could take it a step further and require all the law-abiding gun owners to turn over their firearms tomorrow and many of them will. That, however, does not solve the problem of the violent people that will still use what is left in their possession, and next week there will be 15 more homicides in Chicago alone.

I'm sorry, but while guns may have a part in this problem, there is a MUCH bigger underlying problem that needs to be solved. I'm not sure what it is exactly, or what the solution is, but I don't think restricting responsible people is the answer.

FWIW, I think we would have many more incidents of homemade bombs used in mass killings if guns were restricted. Most active shooter incidents included bombs of some sort.

First, the actions we take don't have to be perfect. They just have to be better.

Second, many of the suggestions you condemn above would have an effect over time of reducing weapon availability. Now, whether that's good or bad depends on who has 'em, of course. But sheer reduction in availability means with each passing year, weapons are marginally harder to get. That could mean a reduction in crimes of opportunity or despair (i.e., crimes of passion shootings and suicides).

Third, many of the responsible people who have weapons today can happily continue to have weapons tomorrow, but might be encouraged through new laws to become MORE responsible about them (which might result in fewer stolen weapons, fewer accidental shootings and deaths).

Fourth, greater tracking might help the FBI and CIA home in on terrorist suspects because their behavior and their arsenals tend to be larger and acquired over a shorter period of time than your "responsible people" in the general public.

Fifth, greater tracking might enable the FBI/CIA to catch some wackjobs before they actually manage to shoot anybody.

I think you're probably correct that new laws of the type mentioned above will have little effect on the drug lords or gang crimes. That's a pretty stubborn problem. But we would see a reduction in weapons available to them, over time, as well, if we tightened up the general market and the ability to steal them. Whether that alone would be worth the costs, I don't know. But add all 5 points together, and maybe we can consider a few changes?

[Tabby]

I don't think so. Gun violence is gun violence. Countries with gun control have lower incidences of gun related gang violence, domestic violence and suicides as well. The gun is the common them in all.

Ok, so let's reverse this a little...

Considering the shear amount of illegal guns currently on the street, how do we *get back* the guns that are used in gang violence, domestic cases and suicides? How do we get them out of the hands of the "gang bangers" doing drive-bys? How do we get them out of the hands of husbands/wives that have violent tendencies but because their partner won't report it, they are otherwise known as perfect law-abiding citizens? How do we get them out of the hands of the person who is contemplating suicide but is the classic case of nobody knowing how close they are?

Frankly, you could close the barn doors after the guns were let out by banning any further firearm sales but that still won't solve the problem. Heck, you could take it a step further and require all the law-abiding gun owners to turn over their firearms tomorrow and many of them will. That, however, does not solve the problem of the violent people that will still use what is left in their possession, and next week there will be 15 more homicides in Chicago alone.

I'm sorry, but while guns may have a part in this problem, there is a MUCH bigger underlying problem that needs to be solved. I'm not sure what it is exactly, or what the solution is, but I don't think restricting responsible people is the answer.

FWIW, I think we would have many more incidents of homemade bombs used in mass killings if guns were restricted. Most active shooter incidents included bombs of some sort.

Australia did it: http://time.com/2822017/this-country-pr ... shootings/

Edited to add - guns are not "part" of the problem. They are the problem. The other issues are also problems but they will not be nearly as serious if you get the guns under control. This has been proven time and time again in many, many jurisdictions. It doesn't mean you ignore these other issues but if you ignore the core issue (the gun), then you will continue to have guns involved in mass shootings, domestic violence, gang violence and suicides.

[myleetlepony]

Now what about this scenario; currently, if a gun is stolen (the following assumes the owner is a law-abiding, responsible firearm owner), it is reported to police, entered into the state's database and it's also tracked through NCIC (nationwide). If that weapon turns up on someone during a search (for any reason), the gun is recovered and the person is charged with possession of a stolen firearm.

How long do you think it would take for people to stop reporting their firearms as stolen if there are legal consequences for not storing them "properly" (in a safe, unloaded, locked, etc). Granted, there are currently some states that have laws regarding unsafe storage, but those are used retroactively when a crime is committed. If storage laws become preemptive, I foresee lots of stolen guns going unreported. That seems illogical to me as they may get into illicit hands easier if it's not trackable.

Your above scenario also does not take into account the weapons that are illegally smuggled into the country, mostly via the southern border, which aren't hard to get if you have enough money and know where to go.

So, tell me why, again, we are restricting the millions of law abiding gun owners instead of trying to get to the bottom of the problem? At what point do we start tracking fertilizer, pressure-cooker, boxes of nails, household cleaner, and match sales?

Fourth, greater tracking might help the FBI and CIA home in on terrorist suspects because their behavior and their arsenals tend to be larger and acquired over a shorter period of time than your "responsible people" in the general public.

I believe to an extent, sales are tracked in certain ways for this purpose already.

[myleetlepony]

Tabby, I disagree; guns are the tool of the problem. If that's not available, something else will be utilized, likely with similar consequences.

That drive-by that killed one person? The bomb now kills the whole household, or the friends getting into the vehicle with the target. It just takes a little longer to plan...

[Hoof'n it]

I have never held a gun, let a lone seen a gun in real life more than a handful of times.
I come from a country where gun rules are very tight and have big penalties if you are caught with one and don't carry a firearms license.
You have to jump through hoops to get a firearms license.

Do we still have gun issues? Yes
Do we have mass shootings? No

People who have the means and the know-how are always going to find a way around laws. But they have to work to get what they want. Just like Criminals are always going to cause trouble.

I am currently having to study our fire arms code book, to take a test to start the process of getting my firearms license, in order to buy a rifle to shoot possums and rabbits on my farm. It's also going to take a back ground check, an interview, 2 character witnesses, about $500 in fees and gun cases, and a home check, before I even get a bit of plastic (license) to legally buy a rifle.

Many of our front line police officers are not armed with guns.

There are tight controls around buying rifles/shot guns. Tighter for any other type of gun.

There is no doubt that with tighter gun control, means that there are less guns available to the general population.

But i guess my question is, how can America bring in tighter gun control, even if a law was passed?
There are soo many guns out there in the general population, that it would make regulating the law very very difficult.

[Spiritpaws]

Hoof'n it, you bring up an excellent point: we have 40 million more guns in this country than citizens. After every mass shooting there is a spike in new gun sales. Then we have police departments who are armed like marines.

If we can't change the gun laws, perhaps we can change the consciousness. And maybe that takes the same kind of pressures that changed attitudes on smoking cigarettes, gay marriage, and drunk driving. Of course some people still smoke, some people oppose gay marriage, and some people drive drunk, but the cultural shift in consciousness on these particular issues reduced smoking, legalized gay marriage, and brought about huge penalties for drunk driving. It's time to apply those same pressures to gun ownership.

[Tabby]

Tabby, I disagree; guns are the tool of the problem. If that's not available, something else will be utilized, likely with similar consequences.

Then explain to me why other countries where guns are less available don't have similar consequences? Many of these countries are highly similar to the US in terms of culture, demographics, political structure, economics, language, religion, development, education etc., etc., etc. The data is out there and it is real. It's time to remove the blinders and look at the world around you.

[Tabby]

Now what about this scenario; currently, if a gun is stolen (the following assumes the owner is a law-abiding, responsible firearm owner), it is reported to police, entered into the state's database and it's also tracked through NCIC (nationwide). If that weapon turns up on someone during a search (for any reason), the gun is recovered and the person is charged with possession of a stolen firearm.

Why would a law-abiding, responsible firearm owner be charged for a crime committed with his gun that he REPORTED stolen? If he didn't report it, I can see how he could be considered responsible. But once he's reported it - he's absolved himself of any future crimes committed with that gun. Same as if your car got stolen and then was found full of heroine. They would only come after you if you DIDN'T report it stolen.

[Tabby]

Hoof'n it, you bring up an excellent point: we have 40 million more guns in this country than citizens. After every mass shooting there is a spike in new gun sales. Then we have police departments who are armed like marines.

If we can't change the gun laws, perhaps we can change the consciousness. And maybe that takes the same kind of pressures that changed attitudes on smoking cigarettes, gay marriage, and drunk driving. Of course some people still smoke, some people oppose gay marriage, and some people drive drunk, but the cultural shift in consciousness on these particular issues reduced smoking, legalized gay marriage, and brought about huge penalties for drunk driving. It's time to apply those same pressures to gun ownership.

What do you think has been behind cultural shifts regarding these issues? Take smoking - here are some (but not all) of the ways they've regulated (controlled) smoking:

- increased taxes on cigarettes
- made smoking indoors illegal (starting with restaurants and malls, now you can't smoke in a hotel room)
- implemented a minimum age to buy cigarettes
- put warnings on the boxes
- limited advertising for tobacco products
- ran public service ad campaigns about the hazards of smoking
- promoted countless different types of quit-smoking programs/aids/drugs etc.

I'm not sure about the US but in Canada they have also implemented laws against smoking in cars with a minor, smoking on public property (e.g. city park, outside a hospital), displaying cigarettes in a store (all are inside cabinets now), smoking within 9 metres of a door to a building, smoking in the workplace (even if you are self-employed), smoking on a restaurant patio, smoking under any kind of a shelter and probably a few other things.

All of these things were pro-actively meant to reduce smoking and they've not only effectively reduced the number of smokers, but they've also caused a cultural shift. It sure doesn't seem "cool" anymore to be standing out in a blizzard on your coffee break. And they did all this with the tobacco industry fighting every step of the way.

I simply don't understand why the US is so paralyzed when it comes to implementing even the smallest measures towards gun control.

[myleetlepony]

Now what about this scenario; currently, if a gun is stolen (the following assumes the owner is a law-abiding, responsible firearm owner), it is reported to police, entered into the state's database and it's also tracked through NCIC (nationwide). If that weapon turns up on someone during a search (for any reason), the gun is recovered and the person is charged with possession of a stolen firearm.

Why would a law-abiding, responsible firearm owner be charged for a crime committed with his gun that he REPORTED stolen? If he didn't report it, I can see how he could be considered responsible. But once he's reported it - he's absolved himself of any future crimes committed with that gun. Same as if your car got stolen and then was found full of heroine. They would only come after you if you DIDN'T report it stolen.

Because according to gun control advocates, if the gun was accessible to be stolen, he obviously didn't store it correctly.

[WheresMyWhite]

Then we have police departments who are armed like marines.

This ends up being a 'bad LE, bad' when they're shown in SWAT photos or similar.

But, the tradeoff.... when there is something like the recent California or Colorado shootings, having LE "armed like marines" isn't so bad as the shooters are most likely similarly armed.

Where do you draw the lines with respect to LE and what they are armed with knowing what they might run up against?

[boots-aregard]

Now what about this scenario; currently, if a gun is stolen (the following assumes the owner is a law-abiding, responsible firearm owner), it is reported to police, entered into the state's database and it's also tracked through NCIC (nationwide). If that weapon turns up on someone during a search (for any reason), the gun is recovered and the person is charged with possession of a stolen firearm.

How long do you think it would take for people to stop reporting their firearms as stolen if there are legal consequences for not storing them "properly" (in a safe, unloaded, locked, etc). Granted, there are currently some states that have laws regarding unsafe storage, but those are used retroactively when a crime is committed. If storage laws become preemptive, I foresee lots of stolen guns going unreported.

Ah, but if we require the owner to maintain INSURANCE on the weapon, they continue to pay that insurance for a gun they don't have (and haven't reported as stolen) because to cancel the insurance instigates an investigation. This is an incentive TO report them as stolen. There is a non-zero cost to fudging.

And, COME ON! If the weapon wasn't locked up and was available to be stolen, and g-you, as a LAW ABIDING gun owner KNOW that a stolen gun is a dangerous thing to have floating around in the neighborhood, don't you have SOME responsibility? People put locks on their doors and lojack on their cars and have safes for their important papers, and none of that stuff is designed with the purpose of being deadly. RESPONSIBLE gun owners MUST KNOW that if their rabbit-shooting gun is stolen, it's not stolen by some farmer who needs it to shoot rabbits.

Fourth, greater tracking might help the FBI and CIA home in on terrorist suspects because their behavior and their arsenals tend to be larger and acquired over a shorter period of time than your "responsible people" in the general public.

I believe to an extent, sales are tracked in certain ways for this purpose already.

So, tell me again why it would be so horrible, awful and very bad to do these things even better?

[boots-aregard]

Tabby, I disagree; guns are the tool of the problem. If that's not available, something else will be utilized, likely with similar consequences.

That drive-by that killed one person? The bomb now kills the whole household, or the friends getting into the vehicle with the target. It just takes a little longer to plan...

Criminals and terrorists are like many other folks: they like to do things the easy way.

And the stats bear this out. Where guns are less available, gun violence doesn't _disappear_ but it DOES diminish greatly.

We don't have to be perfect. We just want to be better.

[KathyK]

Now what about this scenario; currently, if a gun is stolen (the following assumes the owner is a law-abiding, responsible firearm owner), it is reported to police, entered into the state's database and it's also tracked through NCIC (nationwide). If that weapon turns up on someone during a search (for any reason), the gun is recovered and the person is charged with possession of a stolen firearm.

Why would a law-abiding, responsible firearm owner be charged for a crime committed with his gun that he REPORTED stolen? If he didn't report it, I can see how he could be considered responsible. But once he's reported it - he's absolved himself of any future crimes committed with that gun. Same as if your car got stolen and then was found full of heroine. They would only come after you if you DIDN'T report it stolen.

Because according to gun control advocates, if the gun was accessible to be stolen, he obviously didn't store it correctly.

What does that have to do with reporting it stolen to the police? You cannot continue to come back with non-sequiturs and expect to be taken seriously.

[Tsuy]

I don't think so. Gun violence is gun violence. Countries with gun control have lower incidences of gun related gang violence, domestic violence and suicides as well. The gun is the common them in all.

I would disagree that the gun is the "common theme". While it is true that you, and correctly so, cite countries with gun control having lower incidents of gun related violence, what is not, IN MY OPINION, taken into consideration are cultural and criminal justice considerations in those countries. In many countries the sentence for using a gun, gun control or not, is much stronger than in this country. Gun control does not exist in a vacuum.

Sorry to repeat my Question and I thank you for staying in the conversation as you seem to be one of the few NRA people prepared to debate BUT

How many is too many?
If it gets from every other day to every day mass shootings, is that too many?
If it starts to happen several times a day - is that too many?

At what point does the NRA say Too many deaths from gunshot wounds - we have to make change?
Or is that never going to happen?

[myleetlepony]

Sorry to repeat my Question and I thank you for staying in the conversation as you seem to be one of the few NRA people prepared to debate BUT

Thanks for the veiled name calling but I will make one thing crystal clear. I HATE the NRA. To me, they are just as underhanded, dirty and two-faced as PETA, if not worse. I can't answer any of your "what does the NRA say" questions because I don't follow them and don't care what they have to say.

What does that have to do with reporting it stolen to the police? You cannot continue to come back with non-sequiturs and expect to be taken seriously.

How is it a non-sequitur when it's a real concern, both by firearm owners and LE? People are concerned that if storage laws become tough due to advocated gun control, they will be held liable. Some LE I know have expressed concern that people will then stop reporting stolen firearms for fear of being charged with improper storage.

Guess what...some gun safes are portable! Some people store handguns in smaller document type safes that are not accessible to their children. However, during a burglary, someone can take off with it to break into later. Sometimes the burglar doesn't even realize the safe has a firearm; s/he thinks there's money or jewelry in it.

Then we have police departments who are armed like marines.

Hmm, well I know the people in the village just north of me were happy to have the anti-landmine tanker available to them when there was a gunman on the loose that had shot two officers. The County used it to transport residents out of the neighborhood to a safe area. And before the comments on that scenario start, the offender SPECIFICALLY stated he was targeting police officers.

How many is too many?
If it gets from every other day to every day mass shootings, is that too many?
If it starts to happen several times a day - is that too many?

One is too many. Again, what is the UNDERLYING problem here that needs to be addressed???? There's been a cultural shift recently and I wish every day there was an answer. It wasn't that long ago guns were in the racks of pickups in town, at the malls, in the school parking lot, etc. Something changed it seems during the 70's or 80's or maybe it started with Columbine.

One point that I heard regarding this issue, and I think it's a valid one, is that most other countries expect their government to insure their safety and well being, but in the US, our overall mentality is that we are responsible for ourselves and our own safety. Isn't that why our country was started, so that we were responsible for ourselves and not reliant and ruled over? I think that might be a key point for why culturally, it's going to be hard to change the mentality of gun owners and advocates in general.

I get that most of you think I'm a card carrying NRA, flag waving, gun toting nutbag, but I'm not. My guns are secured, firearm safety is paramount in our home, I don't hunt, and I don't have a concealed carry license. Maybe my profession has given me a little insight into the world we live in that many are only vaguely aware of and think of it as on the peripheral.

[WheresMyWhite]

Sorry to repeat my Question and I thank you for staying in the conversation as you seem to be one of the few NRA people prepared to debate BUT

How many is too many?

Just to be clear

I have, in the past, been an NRA member. I am currently not, but not because of their philosophy more because of cost. I have never contributed to the NRA-ILA which is their expansive lobbying arm.

There is much about NRA that I do support... their belief in the 2nd Amendment, their education programs. Some of their current commentary, I am not so sure I am on board with.

How many is too many... one is too many. But, there will be more. Even if we all decided tomorrow that we'd march down to our local LE and turn in all our guns (which wouldn't happen ) there would still be guns left "in the wild". And those guns, for the most part, will be the ones that will continue to do damage. Might a mass turn in keep a few from dying, probably. But it wouldn't solve the problem.

MLP had some points I agree with. Until I am personally convinced that "gun control" (whatever that really ultimately means) strategies really will solve problems I'm not so on board. One of my constant heartburn issues is that every time there is some sort of "incident" (and there are many different flavours), there is a hue and cry over control. But IN MY OPINION, the "control" often does't address the root cause of the incident that precipitated that current round of control.

IMO, one of the dumber things was congress' refusal to fund study/data collection on firearm incidents. I want to understand the underlying cause(s) and work to address those instead of generic "control" that impacts a huge majority of legal owners without really addressing why incidents occur.

The vast majority of gun owners are not wacko, insane or not caring of the loss of human life.

[myleetlepony]

Even if we all decided tomorrow that we'd march down to our local LE and turn in all our guns (which wouldn't happen ) there would still be guns left "in the wild". And those guns, for the most part, will be the ones that will continue to do damage. Might a mass turn in keep a few from dying, probably. But it wouldn't solve the problem.

I agree with this and disagree with the sentiment mentioned above that over time, gun numbers in the hands of criminals will reduce. First of all, that doesn't take into account smuggled firearms from the southern border. Secondly, that could take upwards of 10,15 or 20 years. In that time, that leaves people vulnerable against those who are using their illegal guns for crimes.

IMO, one of the dumber things was congress' refusal to fund study/data collection on firearm incidents.

Thank you, NRA *sigh*. This is one of the problems I have with them. As you stated, we *need* to know the underlying causes and the (cough) lovely NRA blocked it. That upsets me because it's turned the focus back onto the tool instead of the bigger problem.

[WheresMyWhite]

Thank you, NRA *sigh*. This is one of the problems I have with them. As you stated, we *need* to know the underlying causes and the (cough) lovely NRA blocked it. That upsets me because it's turned the focus back onto the tool instead of the bigger problem.

Just to play a bit of devil's advocate... the NRA didn't block it... it was pansy congress-critters who pandered to the NRA who blocked it. NRA it of itself had no ability to do anything other than threaten legislators and they caved en masse to the NRA...

So if you are going to thank the NRA tongue in cheek, thank also the spineless legislators

[myleetlepony]

Ok, I'll give you that...both the NRA AND the legislators are pansy-asses I'm sure the NRA lined the pockets VERY WELL to block that legislation, and that pisses me off.

[Tabby]

How many is too many... one is too many. But, there will be more. Even if we all decided tomorrow that we'd march down to our local LE and turn in all our guns (which wouldn't happen ) there would still be guns left "in the wild". And those guns, for the most part, will be the ones that will continue to do damage. Might a mass turn in keep a few from dying, probably. But it wouldn't solve the problem.

I would like to once again refer you to the Australian experience where the government bought back guns at market price, gave amnesty to those who turned in illegal guns, and drastically reduced the number of firearm suicides and homicides. This is one link - there are many, many others. http://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback

Some snipits from this article:

One of the most significant provisions of the NFA was a flat-out ban on certain kinds of guns, such as automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. But there were already a number of such guns in circulation in Australia, and the NFA required getting them off the streets.

Australia solved this problem by introducing a mandatory buyback: Australia's states would take away all guns that had just been declared illegal. In exchange, they'd pay the guns' owners a fair price, set by a national committee using market value as a benchmark, to compensate for the loss of their property. The NFA also offered legal amnesty for anyone who handed in illegally owned guns, though they weren't compensated.

According to one academic estimate, the buyback took in and destroyed 20 percent of all privately owned guns in Australia. Analysis of import data suggests that Australians haven't purchased nearly enough guns in the past 18 years to make up for the initial decline.

What they found is a decline in both suicide and homicide rates after the NFA. The average firearm suicide rate in Australia in the seven years after the bill declined by 57 percent compared with the seven years prior. The average firearm homicide rate went down by about 42 percent.

1996 and 1997, the two years in which the NFA was actually implemented, saw the largest percentage declines in the homicide rate in any two-year period in Australia between 1915 and 2004.

You say one death is too many. Isn't it then worth it to prevent one more new death?

[myleetlepony]

Tabby, why is it that "do what Australia did" is the only solution? Can you even consider the thought that there may be other solutions out there that may be effective for a country that has "right to bear arms" in it's Constitution???

[seahorsefarm]

Tabby, why is it that "do what Australia did" is the only solution? Can you even consider the thought that there may be other solutions out there that may be effective for a country that has "right to bear arms" in it's Constitution???

People often assert that the Constitution says we have a "right to bear arms", but then conveniently leave out any reference to a well-regulated militia. And in any case, the phrases appear in an Amendment, not in the Constitution itself. So I am about ready to propose let's repeal that ill-written amendment language and replace it with a clearly worded one that can't be interpreted differently according to whether people want to defend the state or defend themselves against the state.

Yeah, not gonna happen.

And I don't see any resolution to gun violence in the US. We can't agree on what causes the problem, so we're not going to devise and agree on a solution.

[WheresMyWhite]

People often assert that the Constitution says we have a "right to bear arms", but then conveniently leave out any reference to a well-regulated militia. And in any case, the phrases appear in an Amendment, not in the Constitution itself. So I am about ready to propose let's repeal that ill-written amendment language and replace it with a clearly worded one that can't be interpreted differently according to whether people want to defend the state or defend themselves against the state.

Yeah, not gonna happen.

I certainly wouldn't support this. The 2nd Amendment is part of the initial 10 amendments to the Constitution, also known as the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights were intended to ensure rights of the individual. You may feel it is "ill-written" but I would find that hard to swallow given it was written primarily by the same people who crafted the Constitution.

Yes, it was written a few hundred years ago but I'm not buying it was "ill-written"... that would, IN MY OPINION, call into question were other of the Bill of Rights also ill-written? The world has changed for sure since the Bill of Rights was written but ill-written, no so much.

[Tabby]

Tabby, why is it that "do what Australia did" is the only solution? Can you even consider the thought that there may be other solutions out there that may be effective for a country that has "right to bear arms" in it's Constitution???

Because posters write over and over again that they won't believe gun control will work until they see it for themselves, yet they seemingly refuse to look at this particular example. Australia was very much like the US before they implemented their gun control laws.

Some examples from this thead:

How many is too many... one is too many. But, there will be more. Even if we all decided tomorrow that we'd march down to our local LE and turn in all our guns (which wouldn't happen ) there would still be guns left "in the wild". And those guns, for the most part, will be the ones that will continue to do damage. Might a mass turn in keep a few from dying, probably. But it wouldn't solve the problem.

I disagree; guns are the tool of the problem. If that's not available, something else will be utilized, likely with similar consequences.

Frankly, you could close the barn doors after the guns were let out by banning any further firearm sales but that still won't solve the problem. Heck, you could take it a step further and require all the law-abiding gun owners to turn over their firearms tomorrow and many of them will. That, however, does not solve the problem of the violent people that will still use what is left in their possession, and next week there will be 15 more homicides in Chicago alone.

I'm sorry, but while guns may have a part in this problem, there is a MUCH bigger underlying problem that needs to be solved. I'm not sure what it is exactly, or what the solution is, but I don't think restricting responsible people is the answer.

I would disagree that the gun is the "common theme". While it is true that you, and correctly so, cite countries with gun control having lower incidents of gun related violence, what is not, IN MY OPINION, taken into consideration are cultural and criminal justice considerations in those countries. In many countries the sentence for using a gun, gun control or not, is much stronger than in this country. Gun control does not exist in a vacuum.

You can look at other countries with gun control as well. They also have far lower incidences of gun-related violence of all sorts. Australia just happens to be a good example because they went from being a pro-gun culture to very restricted in a short period of time.

Oh and to whoever mentioned that guns would just pour over the southern border, that's pretty much how Canadian gangs get their guns. We STILL have way fewer gun-related gang deaths than the US.

[WheresMyWhite]

United States of America <> Australia...

[Tabby]

No but it isn't so much different that you can't draw some parallels.

Why are Americans so stubborn that they don't even want to try to improve things? Even if you want to completely deflect the problem onto some other issue - at least do something about those other issues. You MUST be able to agree that doing nothing at all isn't working.

[myleetlepony]

People often assert that the Constitution says we have a "right to bear arms", but then conveniently leave out any reference to a well-regulated militia. And in any case, the phrases appear in an Amendment, not in the Constitution itself. So I am about ready to propose let's repeal that ill-written amendment language and replace it with a clearly worded one that can't be interpreted differently according to whether people want to defend the state or defend themselves against the state.

Yeah, not gonna happen.

And I don't see any resolution to gun violence in the US. We can't agree on what causes the problem, so we're not going to devise and agree on a solution.

My bad, yes, it's in the BOR.

Can you imagine the can of worms repealing specific amendments would open up?

Something tells me that if we were to propose repealing the 2nd Amendment OR did an Australian style firearm round up, you'd have millions of Americans invoking the "well-regulated militia" part and starting a war.

[myleetlepony]

No but it isn't so much different that you can't draw some parallels.

Why are Americans so stubborn that they don't even want to try to improve things? Even if you want to completely deflect the problem onto some other issue - at least do something about those other issues. You MUST be able to agree that doing nothing at all isn't working.

It's not that we are stubborn, it's that we have our 2nd Amendment to take into consideration. Sure, I agree that doing nothing isn't the answer. At the same time, there is a group that feels forcing everyone to be armed is a solution.

I think, at the very least, our first step is to fund legislation to study gun crimes.

That was me who mentioned the smuggled guns from our southern border. I'm sure Canada does have an issue with it, too, but I would venture to guess the bulk of them are dropped off in the US and don't make it much further north.

[Tabby]

Perhaps you misunderstood. Most of the illegal guns in Canada are purchased in the US and smuggled north through the border to us. 70% of guns used in crime originated from America http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/crossfire ... 15?cmp=rss

[boots-aregard]

Guess what...some gun safes are portable! Some people store handguns in smaller document type safes that are not accessible to their children. However, during a burglary, someone can take off with it to break into later.

Pssst. That's not a safe. That's a box. Safes are attached to structure so they can't go on walk about. And, yeah, I get it that "marketing" will tell you otherwise, but surely, thinking carefully as a "responsible gun owner" who does not want to contribute to the proliferation of stolen weapons in hands of criminals, the definition of a "safe" should come clear.

I get that most of you think I'm a card carrying NRA, flag waving, gun toting nutbag, but I'm not. My guns are secured, firearm safety is paramount in our home, I don't hunt, and I don't have a concealed carry license. Maybe my profession has given me a little insight into the world we live in that many are only vaguely aware of and think of it as on the peripheral.

Don't take the comments too personally. We aren't examining YOU, personally, or your habits or anything else. People are trying to have a discussion with people, about people. Lots of people.

[boots-aregard]

It's not that we are stubborn, it's that we have our 2nd Amendment to take into consideration. Sure, I agree that doing nothing isn't the answer. At the same time, there is a group that feels forcing everyone to be armed is a solution.

I have heard that argument, and there is some internal logic, but it only goes so far. The real concern is that we know terrorists and nutcases are going to go after soft targets. Nobody in their right mind would advocate arming CHILDREN, or the mentally infirm. So, soft targets would continue to exist, even if every other person was armed.

And we'd have the same kinds of problems we have today with terrorists and nutcases going after soft targets.

Further, if the entire adult population over the age of 18 and under the age of 70 were armed, how much political support would there be for further protecting soft targets? Just about zero, resting as folks would on the notion that *most* people being armed is good enough, when in fact *most* people being armed makes is a whole lot easier for terrorists and nutbars to obtain weapons, transport weapons, buy ammunition for weapons, and carry out their attacks. So the widespread "camoflage" of a fully armed populace would make such attacks EASIER rather than harder.

I think, at the very least, our first step is to fund legislation to study gun crimes.

That was me who mentioned the smuggled guns from our southern border. I'm sure Canada does have an issue with it, too, but I would venture to guess the bulk of them are dropped off in the US and don't make it much further north.

With you on the study, but one of the things the study will find is that the bulk of the guns that come over the border from Mexico were in fact manufactured in the U.S. and have simply done a round trip.

[myleetlepony]

Guess what...some gun safes are portable! Some people store handguns in smaller document type safes that are not accessible to their children. However, during a burglary, someone can take off with it to break into later.

Pssst. That's not a safe. That's a box. Safes are attached to structure so they can't go on walk about. And, yeah, I get it that "marketing" will tell you otherwise, but surely, thinking carefully as a "responsible gun owner" who does not want to contribute to the proliferation of stolen weapons in hands of criminals, the definition of a "safe" should come clear.

I get that most of you think I'm a card carrying NRA, flag waving, gun toting nutbag, but I'm not. My guns are secured, firearm safety is paramount in our home, I don't hunt, and I don't have a concealed carry license. Maybe my profession has given me a little insight into the world we live in that many are only vaguely aware of and think of it as on the peripheral.

Don't take the comments too personally. We aren't examining YOU, personally, or your habits or anything else. People are trying to have a discussion with people, about people. Lots of people.

Thanks, boots....I really do enjoy honest, open debates/arguments. One of my clients is a dyed-in-the-wool-bleeds-blue liberal, and she is one of my FAVORITE people to talk political issues with. It provokes thought, understanding, and hopefully some tolerance on both sides. I suppose part of my above comment was still thinking of the NRA member comment. I can't honestly describe how much I hate them!

Regarding safes, I do think generally people think a safe "box" in an alarmed residence *is* a reasonable measure of safety. There are lines that need to be drawn in the sand (and each one is personal) where you know you *can't control* or prevent every possible scenario or you will drive yourself nuts.

I have heard that argument, and there is some internal logic, but it only goes so far. The real concern is that we know terrorists and nutcases are going to go after soft targets. Nobody in their right mind would advocate arming CHILDREN, or the mentally infirm. So, soft targets would continue to exist, even if every other person was armed.

And we'd have the same kinds of problems we have today with terrorists and nutcases going after soft targets.

Further, if the entire adult population over the age of 18 and under the age of 70 were armed, how much political support would there be for further protecting soft targets? Just about zero, resting as folks would on the notion that *most* people being armed is good enough, when in fact *most* people being armed makes is a whole lot easier for terrorists and nutbars to obtain weapons, transport weapons, buy ammunition for weapons, and carry out their attacks. So the widespread "camoflage" of a fully armed populace would make such attacks EASIER rather than harder.

I agree that arming children and mentally infirm is a BAD idea...although I will admit I know some children that I'd feel safer being armed than some adults! However, I can't agree with you that arming the populace would be seen as "enough", especially if the concept of an armed populace was proving to be ineffective.

I, personally, would not be against allowing teachers to conceal carry. I would agree that it's on a voluntary basis with on-going training and qualifications. I would also agree to general conceal carry requiring "x" amount of continuing education and annual or semi-annual qualification shoots. We already have that for our law enforcement, why don't we for the general public?

As far as easier access to nutbars arming themselves, then maybe it is time to do further background checks, or at least standardize them across state lines. I am also in agreement that all firearm sales/transfer of ownership, even private ones, must go through an FFL.

I'm going to go out on a limb here (as a proclaimed agnostic) and venture to say that maybe it's time to bring religion back into the general realm. I think people were less likely to misbehave in general when they feared something bigger than themselves. I think, to some degree, we started to lose it when we started worrying about offending people with religious beliefs being publicized and religion in general crept into the shadows. I saw an opinion piece on a similar notion on Facebook and it was a very interesting point of view. Since I don't access my FB at work, I can't post it right now, but if anyone recognizes it, please post it here. I think it would be a great discussion piece.

With you on the study, but one of the things the study will find is that the bulk of the guns that come over the border from Mexico were in fact manufactured in the U.S. and have simply done a round trip.

Sure they do! They are smuggled out of the US as payment to drug lords and cartels, and transported back up here for money to send back south. So, how do we tighten the smuggling loop and kill two birds with one stone...illegal guns and illegal drugs? I'd like to see an in-depth thought on that beyond "cut off the supply of firearms in America to be smuggled down south". How do we keep them in the country, and how do we keep them from coming back in?

[Spiritpaws]

Honestly, Myleetlepony, as long as the US is the biggest manufacturer of arms, there is no keeping weapons IN the country. As long as our defense budget is larger than our health and human services budget, there is no keeping weapons IN the country.

I don't "feel" safer when I see LE armed to the teeth. I feel quite the opposite. Perhaps I am still carrying the shadows of 1968 Chicago Democratic convention where without the armaments police have today, they did a pretty good job of beating the crap out of people.

Doesn't anyone want to live in a peaceful society? One that recognizes and respects all sentient beings? We can't get to peaceful until we start behaving with compassion and kindness: in our own backyards. Spraying Roundup is not a compassionate act and it is just as much a weapon as spraying a dandelion with bullets.

[WheresMyWhite]

Pssst. That's not a safe. That's a box. Safes are attached to structure so they can't go on walk about. And, yeah, I get it that "marketing" will tell you otherwise, but surely, thinking carefully as a "responsible gun owner" who does not want to contribute to the proliferation of stolen weapons in hands of criminals, the definition of a "safe" should come clear.

My only heartburn with this is that 'safes' by your definition, are expensive.

IMO, whatever "control" strategy is put in place would continue to allow middle class people to continue to exercise their right to own a firearm.

Things like background checks can certainly be more cost effective for the masses although there is still a question of ultimately who pays for them.

[WheresMyWhite]

Doesn't anyone want to live in a peaceful society? One that recognizes and respects all sentient beings? We can't get to peaceful until we start behaving with compassion and kindness: in our own backyards. Spraying Roundup is not a compassionate act and it is just as much a weapon as spraying a dandelion with bullets.

SP, I hear what you are saying but I don't see the "world" in general wanting to live in a peaceful society. Most parts of the world do, but some parts of the world don't. I'd love to live in a peaceful society where, if I want, I can purchase a gun for hobby shooting. I'd love to live in a peaceful society where I don't worry about someone breaking down my door. I'd love to live in a peaceful society where I don't have to think about where the next mentally unstable person or terrorist is going to show up.

Sometimes, to me, it feels like a pipe dream...

[Tabby]

SP, I hear what you are saying but I don't see the "world" in general wanting to live in a peaceful society. Most parts of the world do, but some parts of the world don't. I'd love to live in a peaceful society where, if I want, I can purchase a gun for hobby shooting. I'd love to live in a peaceful society where I don't worry about someone breaking down my door. I'd love to live in a peaceful society where I don't have to think about where the next mentally unstable person or terrorist is going to show up.

Sometimes, to me, it feels like a pipe dream...

Not a pipe dream at all. My world is exactly like this. I can purchase a gun for hobby shooting if I want. I don't worry about anybody breaking down my door. I also don't worry about being caught in anybody's cross fire when I leave my home. I don't think about where the next mentally unstable person or terrorist is going to show up because they won't be armed. It's not a pipe dream at all.

[Tabby]

Things like background checks can certainly be more cost effective for the masses although there is still a question of ultimately who pays for them.

Why not the person who is buying the gun?

[Tabby]

Further, if the entire adult population over the age of 18 and under the age of 70 were armed, how much political support would there be for further protecting soft targets? Just about zero, resting as folks would on the notion that *most* people being armed is good enough, when in fact *most* people being armed makes is a whole lot easier for terrorists and nutbars to obtain weapons, transport weapons, buy ammunition for weapons, and carry out their attacks. So the widespread "camoflage" of a fully armed populace would make such attacks EASIER rather than harder.

I think if the entire adult population were armed there would be mass shootings every hour, not just every day. I'd go so far as to say the answer to the original question - what will it take for gun lovers to say ENOUGH - is when it is no longer safe to leave your home because guns are firing everywhere all the time. Killing 5 year olds didn't do it. Neither did daily mass killings. In fact, each of these incidents cause people to go out and buy more and more guns. If nothing changes, then soon just about every adult will be armed and just about every child, mentally ill person and potential terrorist will have such easy access to the guns that there will be no safe place left.

[boots-aregard]

Pssst. That's not a safe. That's a box. Safes are attached to structure so they can't go on walk about. And, yeah, I get it that "marketing" will tell you otherwise, but surely, thinking carefully as a "responsible gun owner" who does not want to contribute to the proliferation of stolen weapons in hands of criminals, the definition of a "safe" should come clear.

My only heartburn with this is that 'safes' by your definition, are expensive.

I haven't bought a gun safe in a while, but I have bought a safe safe, and they aren't THAT expensive. Craigslist is your friend! I'm sure, though, that gun safes CAN be expensive. But so can guns. So can ammunition. So can regular practice at the range, so can classes. If we are looking at greater gun _safety_, I'm not sure what to do with the contention, other than to say, yes, so?

If gun owners and non-gun owners alike want to see greater safety with weapons, and "responsible gun owners" feel that there are a rising tide of gun crimes, what's the problem?

IMO, whatever "control" strategy is put in place would continue to allow middle class people to continue to exercise their right to own a firearm.

Why specifically the middle class?

[Spiritpaws]

Humankind has been fighting violence with violence for thousands of years. I'd say we've given that experiment long enough time to see the results: it doesn't work. Violence begets violence.

Our culture thinks nothing of how animals raised for food are treated, and yet the horse community goes into a whirling dervish of outrage if a horses or horses are abused. How about the cows you eat, the pigs you eat, the chickens you eat? It's all a part of this primitive, reptile consciousness that for some strange reason we Americans want to hold on to.