Do gun aficionados have any ideas to reduce firearm carnage in the U.S.?

You're trying to oversimplify a very complex subject.

Legislation rarely accomplishes its goal, and it frequently has unintended consequences.

The repeal mechanism, though seldom used, is intended to get rid of laws that cause more harm than good.

 

It would get shot down by any court if done on a federal level. If by "enhanced background check" you mean requiring people to do background checks for every single transfer. The Federal government has no power to regulated intrastate transfers.

 

Enhanced sentencing was applied to virtually all defendants, all crimes, not just murderers. All it really does is create prisons full of anti-social individuals. Prison should be reserved for predators.

 

And, when (not if) that has zero affect, they'll pick another type of firearm to ban, then another until they've banned them all.

You can't fool us any longer. We see right through the anti-gunner bullshit.

 

There wasn't no 90% support for enhanced background checks, whatever that is.

 

Do gun aficionados have any ideas to reduce firearm carnage in the U.S.?

Of course. Keep guns away from sociopaths by keeping sociopaths away from society.

 

I'm not. I'm trying to come to an understanding as to why you oppose measures designed to reduce gun violence.

 

By now everyone should know that only an armed public can keep the peace.
The general public should have been enouraged to carry concealed handguns decades ago.

 

part of the problem is imagined paranoia, which runs rampant in the RW, compromise IS the art of politics, my way or the highway isNOT politcs

 

Yet another instance of mindless, ideological opposition over reasonable, preventative measures in the public interest.

A comparison of states with more and less permissive gun policies makes the obvious even more obvious:

The five states with the lowest gun death rates, in deaths per 100,000, are:

1. Massachusetts (3.4)
2. New York (3.9)
3. New Jersey (4.1)
4. Hawaii (4.4)
5. Rhode Island (4.6).

Here are the 10 states with the highest rates of gun death:

1. Alaska (23)
2. Alabama (21.4)
3. Louisiana (21.2)
4. Mississippi (19. )
5. Oklahoma (19.6)
6. Montana (19)
7. Missouri (18. )
8. New Mexico (18.2)
9. Arkansas (17.7)
10. South Carolina (17.7)

​

 

Thanks for such a clear question and statement.

At age 75 now, and having been raised and trained by parents about proper handling of guns, I can remember when the first "gun control" law came about back in the 60's. I am aware that countless of other "gun control" measures have been piled upon the first efforts, on both federal and state levels, and I am aware by empirical evidence that all those have failed.

At what point can the public admit the obvious?

 

the obvious a national law is needed, hows that?

 

National laws are already on the books Bobo. They have been since after they offed RFK

 

So we're back to the beginning of your false accusations to paint advocates of gun control as anti-2nd A radicals.

 

I suspect what constitutes the obvious depends on one's perspective.

 

There's nothing false about it. Gun control advocates don't want anyone but the government owning/possessing guns.

 

The rise in gun ownership in the US in the 60's, especially handguns, was the result of the rise of the unrest of the time. It's a cycle that has continued so there are now about 270M guns in civilian hands in the US. People buy guns to falsely make them feel safe, which leads to more gun violence, which leads to people feeling they need a gun to be safe, which leads to more gun violence..................................................................................

 

A straw man argument, sometimes called a straw person argument or spelled strawman argument, is the logical fallacy of distorting an opposing position into an extreme version of itself and then arguing against that extreme version.

 

There is no compromise with gun control. Gun owners do the giving and the anti-gunners do the taking, while gun owners get zilch in return. That isn't compromise. Either you already know that, or you don't understand the meaning of the word "compromise".

 

You did not. You simply responded to my link as if you had cited a case. I cited the body of current case law regarding cruel and unusual punishment and what the court has decided that means.
If you'd like to discuss a single case, provide the citation and let's discuss it.

Furthermore: The shorthand description of torture I used is pulled from existing statutes barring torture under color of law by public officials. Torture is defined to include acts specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/constit...and-unusual-punishments-doctrine-and-practice
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/217/349
^ Try to get your theory around the very basic discussion in Weems. Don't worry, we'll wait.

 

obviously not strict enough ones, im 67 now and dont think this gun issue is going away in my lifetime, its just i have always lived in an urban area, never had a need for a firearm, always have relied on situational awarness

 

But, I'm not distorting anything.

Anti-gunners want to ban "semi-automatic, magazine fed weapons"

This is a semi-automatic, magazine fed weapon...

 

If that were even remotely true the legal landscape applying to guns and gun ownership would look very different. Just a few examples........there would be an assault weapons ban, carry permits would be restricted, gun storage requirements to help ensure against misuse would be in place nationally, gun owners would be required to carry liability insurance, trigger locks while guns were being transported would be mandatory, etc.

 

Because they facilitate the kind of rapid firing that allows for mass murder events.

 

The only anti-gunners whom I've seen make that recommendation have made it about centerfire weapons only, not rimfire.