It's Not Too Soon to Debate Gun Control

[majj27]

So, you want to bulls eye gun owners because of what criminals do?

I don't think most gun owners have an issue with what you said (insurance, etc), but I would have an issue with you assuming the worse - it almost sounds like all 'gun owners' faults that nut cases go off on a killing spree.

I'm NOT a gun owner by the way.

Most registered gun owners aren't the ones going out, and doing these crazy things.

I think that if you wanted to own a firearm, you should be expected to be super-responsible about it. That includes being willing to prove yourself capable of using it and storing it properly. If I wanted to have a gun at my house, I don't think that proving that I can safely store it and am willing to take responsibility for it's use is too much for a society to ask of me.

And for disclosure: I am not a gun owner, but I've given it thought now and again. And I came to the conclusion that if I decided to own one, proper training, registration, and proof of safe storage would be proper requirements.

 

[Hank77]

I believe if you have been in an institution for mental health you can't get one.

That is true if it was court ordered. If not then no, there isn't anyway to check that without access to private medical records. And there is the issue of people who seek help for temporary situations, such as grief over the death of the child or the death of a marriage. That would be grief counseling but medical records would show that they visited a mental health provider.

I though certain criminals - certain classes of crimes - couldn't get firearms.

You are correct under federal law background checks for felons and certain other violent crimes but only sales through licensed gun dealers, it does not require background checks for guns sold at gun shows or through private sales. SOME states, like mine, require background checks for all gun ownership transactions. [mine exempts close family members] So even if you give a gun to someone else in order to make a legal transfer of ownership you must have a licensed gun dealer run a background check first.
But many states do not require background checks at gun shows or private transfers.

 

[Christie insb]

How does the gun being registered to an owner stop any crime from happening with that gun?

In this case the murderer had spent time in prison for abusing his wife and child. Personally I am fine with people who have spent time in prison for a violent crime to be banned from owning guns

 

[Zoii]

So, you want to bulls eye gun owners because of what criminals do?



Most registered gun owners aren't the ones going out, and doing these crazy things.

I would disagree. The mass killings that grab peoples attention, are performed by Joe Average with no criminal record, with registered and legal weapons. They are not those associated with criminal or nefarious activities. These are people whose neighbors say he was a regular guy (and it is 99% men). But he purchased his gun through the local walmart and long with his boxes of ammunition. he worked down the road and seemed an Ok guy. He loved his mum and dad. Then......something changed and he became disaffected. He became an angry or upset person with a large amount of weapons.

 

[HannahT]

Well in Australia if a mafia type owns a gun its not to go on a shooting spree in a church; that just doesnt happen here - Id say he's using it within his/her lil circle of bad guys. The average law abiding citizen doesnt own guns in Australia. Thats not to say some Australians dont own guns because they do - but they have to have a genuine reason such as security, farming etc and theres significant restrictions on the type of gun they can own.

Unfortunately, we have gangs especially in certain cities that run wild. They have illegal guns, and they don't care if they kill people outside their circle of bad guys. A city near me has very restrictive gun laws, and yet it has no effect on the gangs at all. More people were killed there than in Afghanistan. People need to stop and let that soak in for a minute.

I think its cruel that the government allows these gangs to run these neighborhoods, and yet they have allowed it for as long as I can remember. Other cities do much better on that front, but the government there is so arrogant they won't allow enough changes to happen to save their own people. Of course they are the poor, and many are minorities - which if anyone wants to scream 'racism'? I wouldn't have an issue with it there. Why? It wouldn't happen in the RICH parts of the city. It's hypocritical with all their chanting of inclusiveness, diversity, etc. They are all mouth and no action. They love to chant their "Sanctuary' status, but do they market to those people their chances of getting killed there are high? Nope.

The mayor loves to tell people its guns from surrounding states, but if you read enough news stories? It's a convenient tale that is politically satisfying to him, and not reality. Yet, they leave him alone...because he does all the 'right' things overall - and well connected. If he loses in the next election? Someone with his same 'groupthink' will take over, and nothing will change. It makes me cynical, because you see all these innocents die...and they do nothing.

Their gun laws aren't saving them, because their government ignores problems they decide NOT to deal with. It's heartbreaking, and cruel. It really is.

 

[seashale76]

This guy wasn't legally allowed to possess any firearms anyway (court-martial and dishonorable discharge). So, debate making guns illegal all you want. It was already illegal for him.

 

[majj27]

This guy wasn't legally allowed to possess any firearms anyway (court-martial and dishonorable discharge). So, debate making guns illegal all you want. It was already illegal for him.

How did he get hold of them then? Did he own them prior to his conviction and discharge? In that case, someone probably should have removed them. Did he buy them afterwards? If so, then we should probably look into how he did so and who sold them to him.

Those are two things I think we hopefully can all agree should be looked into.

 

[seashale76]

How did he get hold of them then? Did he own them prior to his conviction and discharge? In that case, someone probably should have removed them. Did he buy them afterwards? If so, then we should probably look into how he did so and who sold them to him.

Those are two things I think we hopefully can all agree should be looked into.

Oh- I do agree it should be looked into. However- it never surprises me how often shootings happen in places that have banned guns and by those that can't legally have them anyway- yet people somehow honestly expect criminals to honor the law. Even in places like the UK- criminals still get their hands on guns. When you make laws of this nature- the only ones that follow them are those that would never have killed anyone anyway and it only keeps firearms out of the hands of law-abiding people. I am 100% for having strict parameters for owning and purchasing guns in this country. However- I do not think the government should be in charge of overseeing it.

 

[Hank77]

I'll edit to add that I think registration, along with fingerprinting and gun insurance for registered owners, will make gun crimes less prevalent for these reasons:

Do you want guns registered or gun owners registered?
What is the purpose of fingerprinting?
Gun insurance or gun owner insurance?

 

[essentialsaltes]

How did he get hold of them then?
...
Did he buy them afterwards? If so, then we should probably look into how he did so and who sold them to him.

Yes it was bought afterwards.

Kelley purchased the Ruger AR-556 rifle in April 2016 from an Academy Sports & Outdoors store in San Antonio, a law enforcement official told CNN.
When Kelley filled out the background check paperwork at the store, he checked the box to indicate he didn't have disqualifying criminal history, the official said. He listed an address in Colorado Springs, Colorado when he bought the rifle, the official said.

The important part of a background check is that someone must check the background.

 

[majj27]

Oh- I do agree it should be looked into. However- it never surprises me how often shootings happen in places that have banned guns and by those that can't legally have them anyway- yet people somehow honestly expect criminals to honor the law. Even in places like the UK- criminals still get their hands on guns. When you make laws of this nature- the only ones that follow them are those that would never have killed anyone anyway and it only keeps firearms out of the hands of law-abiding people. I am 100% for having strict parameters for owning and purchasing guns in this country. However- I do not think the government should be in charge of overseeing it.

True, you'll never stop ALL gun violence by having strict rules on purchasing and owning. But if you can mitigate the harm done it is worth consideration, I would think.

Honest question: If the government isn't the ideal group to oversee regulatory standard for gun ownership and sales, who would you suggest should do it?

 

[SummerMadness]

I think the quick refrain that the shooter should not have had a weapon misses the point. If the shooter could obtain a weapon, then there obviously is deficiency in the system. Constantly saying he should not legally have been able to buy the weapons ignores the fact that he did get a weapon and we should know how he got that weapon. If the current laws are inadequate, whether it is coordination, lack of enforcement, or simply an issue of technology, then this needs to be addressed. What often happens is organizations like the NRA fight this type of work, including fighting studies to look at gun crime, thus nothing gets done. And yes, doing studies and collecting statistics on this subject helps in letting you know if the law is working.

The Government Won't Fund Research on Gun Violence Because of NRA Lobbying

A 22-year-old rule is still stimying government funding for research on gun violence. As mass shootings, like the one that took place Sunday in Las Vegas, continue to kill and injure, article after article cites a gap in gun violence research as a roadblock to any progress on gun policy. This gap dates back to a 1996 appropriations bill, known as the Dickey Amendment. The amendment declared that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

While the rule itself does not directly block research on gun violence, it was signed into law along with an earmark that drained money from CDC programs to study gun violence. The $2.6 million in funding originally intended for the program was redirected elsewhere. Since then, the amendment has created a strong chilling effect in the way funding is distributed as well as a lost generation of researchers who study gun violence, Boston University’s Sandro Galea told Newsweek.

This is a real problem because we're simply handicapping ourselves in how to deal with gun violence. And when I hear people saying everyone in the church should be armed, it's sad that this is pushed forward as a credible solution, it demonstrates that they are clearly ignoring attacks like the one in Las Vegas in order to push the "guns, guns, guns" agenda.

 

[HannahT]

I think that if you wanted to own a firearm, you should be expected to be super-responsible about it. That includes being willing to prove yourself capable of using it and storing it properly. If I wanted to have a gun at my house, I don't think that proving that I can safely store it and am willing to take responsibility for it's use is too much for a society to ask of me.

And for disclosure: I am not a gun owner, but I've given it thought now and again. And I came to the conclusion that if I decided to own one, proper training, registration, and proof of safe storage would be proper requirements.

I don't own a gun, nor did I ever register to be one. It's not that I'm scared of them, because I have been around them all my life. I'm just not interested.

Most gun owners are responsible with them, and gun safes are items that fly off the shelves - especially around sales times - to insure safety. They wouldn't be selling if people didn't use them. They are expensive!

Remember the politics of today here! Can you imagine NO FIGHT legally if people have to prove - government coming into their house to verify - they are doing what you ask? It would be nuts! I mean how would they prove such a thing without tramping all over people's personal rights that the country gives them? Now, keeping a receipt for a guns safe to show PROOF of storage? Not a problem I wouldn't think.

I don't have an issue with gun safety training is required, or gun safety (overall) class requirements. People pay to take them now, and I wouldn't have an issue with them being REQUIRED to take them if they want firearms. Most gun owners wouldn't have an issue with it.

They have sportsman channels on TV, and they tote safety all the time. I mean very STAUNCHLY too. They always have.

People seem to be missing the forest for the trees here! This man that killed these poor people wasn't allowed to have a gun. The gang members in the city near us? They can't either. Lanza from Sandy Hook? Nope not him either. The list goes on. It seems easy to blame gun owners, but majority of them aren't the ones blowing people away.

I wish we could look at other aspects - or could be capable of that. Restrictions on responsible gun ownership? Most wouldn't have an issue, but the blame will continue to be pointed at responsible gun ownership anyway. We are a creative country! When can we move past this, and look at other aspects that need concentration. We just need the will to do it.

 

[seashale76]

True, you'll never stop ALL gun violence by having strict rules on purchasing and owning. But if you can mitigate the harm done it is worth consideration, I would think.

Honest question: If the government isn't the ideal group to oversee regulatory standard for gun ownership and sales, who would you suggest should do it?

Private group or NGO. The issue with the government being in charge is one of our government having no checks and balances. That is a very dangerous road to go down.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

It's Not Too Soon to Debate Gun Control
I know @Mountainmanbob agrees on this subject.

No. These shooting keep happening. Should you wait a few weeks. To talk about gun control. And then another couple if weeks. Because another shooting happen again.

 

[seashale76]

So- how do we keep guns out of the hands of those that aren't legally allowed to have them anyway?

 

[LostMarbels]

Well in Australia if a mafia type owns a gun its not to go on a shooting spree in a church; that just doesnt happen here - Id say he's using it within his/her lil circle of bad guys. The average law abiding citizen doesnt own guns in Australia. Thats not to say some Australians dont own guns because they do - but they have to have a genuine reason such as security, farming etc and theres significant restrictions on the type of gun they can own.

That said we still have gun deaths and while its low it could be lowered still and there are many focused on achieving that through tighter regulation.

In America Im guessing that so many have grown up with guns. They know and respect them and manage them responsibly and have a high sense of civic duty. The things said against guns arent aimed at that group - they are aimed at those who have not used them responsibility resulting in tens of thousands of deaths in the USA each year. In the USA even the basics are failing eg gun storage. If you had good systems you wouldnt have over 700 children under the age of ten killed each year by another toddler.

You have to find a way to balance your civil liberties to enjoy your passion for guns, while acknowledging you have a serious flaw in your gun ownership system, that is failing to protect your own society. You need to reconcile this.

I think you have remember on the face of it, if you go by demographics, or the numbers from statistics; My state, Florida, is just about a couple extra cities from reaching the entire population of the country of Australia. 24 Million. So it would be much more reasonable to compare to a single state, rather than the entire nation of 323.95 Million people. That's 13.5 times more citizens than that of Australia. So it stands to reason that America may have 11 times more gun violence with over 13 times the population.

But, at the same time Australia was banning guns and experiencing a decline in gun homicides, America was more than doubling how many firearms it manufactured and seeing a nearly identical drop in gun homicides. That throws a bit of a wrench into the idea that Australia’s gun ban must be the reason for its decline in gun crime.

However, what’s more important is the fact that overall suicides and murder have not “plummeted” in the years after the gun ban. Yes, as with the gun-happy United States, the murder rate is down in Australia. It’s dropped 31 percent from a rate of 1.6 per 100,000 people in 1994 to 1.1 per 100,000 in 2012.But it’s the only serious crime that saw a consistent decline post-ban.

In fact, according to the Australian government’s own statistics, a number of serious crimes peaked in the years after the ban. Manslaughter, sexual assault, kidnapping, armed robbery, and unarmed robbery all saw peaks in the years following the ban, and most remain near or above pre-ban rates. The effects of the 1996 ban on violent crime are, frankly, unimpressive at best.

It’s even less impressive when again compared to America’s decrease in violent crime over the same period. According to data from the U.S. Justice Department, violent crime fell nearly 72 percent between 1993 and 2011. Again, this happened as guns were being manufactured and purchased at an ever-increasing rate.

 

[Hank77]

Thanks, now these are good answers.

Oh well here part of the process to register a vehicle checks that the car is road worthy

Some states do require vehicle inspections in order to register or keep registered a motor vehicle. My state doesn't because in truth very few accidents are caused by defective vehicles. Defective drivers are the problem.

and insured for third party personal injury.

All states in the US require proof of liability insurance. But unless one has taken out a loan using the vehicle as collateral [in which case the lender technically owns the vehicle] there is nothing stopping someone from cancelling that insurance after they register the vehicle. Liability car insurance is insurance on the drivers of the vehicle, not the vehicle itself.

 

[Albion]

Quite obviously, new gun laws would not stop gun violence.

The militant Atheist who killed those 26 or so people in Texas the other day was legally prohibited from owning a gun because of his prior misdeeds. Did that stop him from obtaining one or many and using them? Obviously not. Not anymore than the gang bangers in Chicago who kill hundreds annually despite strict gun control laws.

 

[SummerMadness]

 

[Almost there]

It's pretty clear we have a problem. However, it is not a gun problem. It is a people problem. And though this sort of thing gets a lot of press, it is not a thing that should be on any person's radar regarding risk to himself or his family. He should worry more about slipping in the tub or getting hit by lightning.