What regultions/controls do you Gun Grabbers want

That's because NICS returns the results almost immediately. The problem is that the info that SHOULD get into NICS often doesn't.

Any of the 350,000,000 guns in this country could have been used to murder someone last year, but only 10,000 them (including justified usage) did. Yeah I'd say that's a fairly significantly low percentage.

Bombs are not at all hard to get. Upwards of 200+ have been killed with fires at one time.

Of course you never see these make the news, because the government just wants the guns, they don't care if you kill each other.

 

Law abiding people aren't using their guns in public. We aren't shooting them down public down town Detroit are we?
People own fast car.
People own guns.
Safely

 

These attacks are sporatic, and i am less likely to be a victim than to die in an auto accident, or heart attack, or be killed by my wife, or a fall in the shower, or be diagnosed with cancer.....

In general.... Gun violence happens in poor communities, where there are already lots of guns. People from these poor communities do not tend to hop in the car and drive elsewhere to victomize communities with fewer guns


Generally, people with guns are not motivated to find someone safe to shoot today
Just as they tend not to be concerned about the death penalty when the shoot some one
These shooters start their shooting with the full knowledge and plan that they will die themselves
So the threat of running into a civilian with a gun is just another way for them to wind up dead
Which is the end game anyway in most cases

I am not sure why we persist in thinking about these events as if these people are strategic planners with a high degree of rationality. THEY ARE NUT CASES if we had twice as many guns in this country these guys would still be nut cases. They are not criminals, not drug dealers, not car theives, ... They are nut cases. And by definition, these people have some defect in their rational thought processes. That defect will not be changed by having more guns around

To me
It seems equally absurd to think that gun laws will solve this problem, or to think that more guns will solve the problem

 

Like the progressive princess said

Mr. And Miss. American turn in your guns.
Progressive believe that only the rich have a right to protect themselves. Not you poor peasants.

 

Driving intoxicated is a state enforced law. You do not appear in federal court when cought, you are charged and serve your sentence under the state jurisdiction.

 

so if someone breaks into my home, while I am on vacation, and steals one of my guns... I should be held criminally liable because it wasn't in a safe? what makes you think a safe is anymore secure? how secure of a safe would one need to escape liability? I have an old 1 ton safe from the previous home owner... you know you can just pop the pins on the door and it'll fall right off... but under your logic, I had a safe, and it was in there, who cares how secure the safe is? or should we say the safe wasn't secure enough and I'm still liable? what about handgun boxes that require a code to get inside it, its only 4 switches on some, thats easy enough to open or break through it if you steal it... so are handgun boxes now useless under your new system, despite the person tried to make it safe? how can we prove the person put it in the handgun box, we just have to take the criminals word for it that they found it laying in the open?

I guess the whole problem with your scenario... its once again... "guilty until proven innocent"... there shouldn't ever be a case... you're victimizing the victim who had their home broken into, which in many cases is their safe... what if I had a gunlock on the trigger, but someone took a hammer and screwdriver and popped it off in literally a second... am I now liable for that lock not being enough for a criminal who stole it and had time to get the lock off? how could you ever prove one way or the other if I had the lock on it? you see the huge issue with assuming guilt first... how can I often prove innocence?

shouldn't locking my homes door, be enough of a safe... why should I need a safe inside my safe... doesn't the law say its a crime to break into my safe (home) already... so why should I need a safe for my safe...

what about in public... I have my gun in a holster... criminal walks into a gas station and robs it... now people who hate guns say I shouldn't do anything, because they are more worried about me shooting them, than the criminal, so should I just put my hands up, let him see my gun, and take it from me... am I to be held liable under your scenario since I allowed him to take a gun that was not locked up? you see just how wacky your thought is that people should be held liable for a criminal...

I notice you completely ignored my line of questioning about if we should hold the parents of the criminal liable... for their actions in creating that criminal... I mean if you want to hold a gun owner accountable for locking the door to their home, and a criminal breaking into that home... why shouldn't we hold accountable the parents of the criminal using your logic... they created the person, they raised the person, they failed to make them an upstanding member of society... so why shouldn't they be held responsible for the liability they share in creating the dangerous situation... I mean it fits neatly into your logic, sure we can give the parents a trial right, I mean thats only fair according to you, so lets start holding parents of criminals accountable... the father who was never present in their life, lets track them down and DNA test every man in the country, so we know who fathers these children so we can hold those men accountable for not raising their kids and teaching them right and wrong...

if you want to apply logic to liability in the way you have... lets spread that liability out to everyone involved... why just limit it to the person who had their stuff stolen... "equality"... what a great world you want to live in...

 

Pretty much hits the nail on the head.

As Chris Kyle found out - being armed and highly proficient with a gun does not deter a crazy person from taking your life.

And I would say that having armed citizens in some cases can decrease the numbers of citizens who will be killed in these attacks.

The problem with this debate is that the NRA and others ARE TOO reticent in allowing any type of discussion that might reassess who can buy firearms in this country or on possible restrictions or waiting periods.

If the discussion is merely between the NRA and the anti-gun people then it's a waste of time. Real adults have to step in and ask what can
be done to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable individuals.

I support the right to own firearms, but if in order to protect that right, I need to take a firearms training class, or pass a basic psych exam, then so be it. We force potential drivers to pass a basic exam for the safety of other drivers so I don't understand why the NRA and others are so dead set on preventing any kind of screening.

 

Yeah,
But the problem is that nothing happens in isolation

More guns around ALSO means more of the collateral gun problems
Accidental deaths, ordinary people who just had a moment of rage and reached for a handy gun.


If more people have guns
There will be more irresponsible people with guns
More people with anger management problems and a gun
More domestic disputes with a gun handy
More children who find a gun lying around and play with it
More drunks with guns

 

Yes, obviously. Because congress has no power to enact drunk driving laws. Just as congress has no power to enact gun control laws.

 

I agree with everything you said. I don't think gun laws will solve the problem completely. With as many guns as we have, there will never be a complete solution. I do think gun laws might deter a nut case from buying a gun. If he is determined to get a weapon, he will find a way. However, I don't think there needs to be a legal way for someone with a known mental instability to buy a gun, and there are legal ways for unstable people to legally purchase guns. Universal background checks would make it more difficult for them and doesn't infringe on anyone else's ability to buy one. However, every state does not require a background check on every sale. Until they do, anyone can buy a gun legally, even the criminal and the insane.

 

C. Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833)
The next amendment is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." {[In Story's Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1840), the following two sentences are also added:] One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia. The friends of a free government cannot be too watchful, to overcome the dangerous tendency of the public mind to sacrifice, for the sake of mere private convenience, this powerful check upon the designs of ambitious men.}

Section IV. -- The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
The Constitution. -- By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that, The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history. It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease. The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation.

The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.

Standing Army. -- A further purpose of this amendment is, to preclude any necessity or reasonable excuse for keeping up a standing army. A standing army is condemned by the traditions and sentiments of the people, as being as dangerous to the liberties of the people as the general preparation of the people for the defence of their institutions with arms is preservative of them.

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.
Source:
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm#TOC1

What an individual would like and want is all well and good, EXCEPT when it impinges on the rights of others. The Right for individuals to bear and keep arms has it's roots in English law. Yes laws change but aggression does not whether it's global, continental or local. It is imperative that all individuals of a Republic be capable of protecting themselves from aggression from others. Those who refuse to not to do so do it at their own peril. There are not enough police in this planet to protect each and every individual.

 

That canard has been thoroughly been debunked by the founders, by the Supreme Court, on this forum and by possessing basic reading skills.

 

When they formed their union, the states granted the central government a very small and limited set of powers. These powers are listed in article I, section 8. If you peruse this list, you will see no power to enact universal registration, mandatory training, and purchase restrictions. Therefore, any such legislation would be unconstitutional and illegal.

 

I'd start with these: the same regulations/controls you have for driving a car.

1. Since you can only drive one car at a time, you can only have one gun in your possession at a time.
2. Since you have to take a periodic driver's test as mandated by your state, so too must you take a periodic gun proficiency test.
3. Since your car must be registered, so too must your gun be registered. To you, not to your parents.
4. Since you must carry liability insurance on your car, so too must you carry liability insurance on your gun. Let the actuaries figure out the amounts.
5. You must have your gun license number stamped on your gun.
6. You must carry your registration and proof of insurance any time you carry your gun.
7. You must be 16 years of age to register a gun. You can own a gun at any age.
8. If you carry a gun while under the influence of alcohol or banned substance, you are subject to the same penalties as driving while under the influence, i.e., suspension or forfeiture of your license, the wearing an ankle collar, fines, etc.

 

You might be able to enact such laws in your state, but congress has no power to enact such laws. Take a look at article I, section 8 of the constitution, which lists congress' powers.

 

You can own more than one car at a time
You can own a car without a driver's license
You can own a car without registration, you only need a title
You can own a car without liability if it doesn't leave your property with you in it.
All Guns have serial numbers on them already.
CCW already provides the license that you must carry with out anyway. It also deals with being under the influence.

OK time for the next liberal foolishness.

 

Yes. What happened in those nations cannot be denied. And I'm happy that they stepped out before us and provided an example of what could improve this one.

Arrogant, old-minded hard heads won't catch on in their own lifetimes most likely... but as people continue to die and many more families/friends are affected (the closer we get to being a literal war-zone), consciences WILL be pricked and perceptions of what is legally, morally and constitutionally efficacious WILL be altered. It's either that, or people will soon pull their heads out of their asses and change some laws. Regardless of which... something is going to be changed; by man's will or the progression of events in time.

Here we go.

 

Ownership and registration are two different concepts as I've outlined above. Next time, please try reading for comprehension.

And when was the last time you tried driving two cars at one time.

And, I'm assuming even you know this, a serial number is totally different than a registration number.

 

Not all the time
http://variety.com/2014/film/news/p...t-car-doing-over-100-mph-in-crash-1201024379/
http://abc7chicago.com/news/cops-da...-crash-killed-himself-9-year-old-son-/850293/
http://fox17online.com/2015/07/09/fruitport-resident-dies-in-crash-driving-in-excess-of-100mph/

I could fill the page with hundreds of links, but they all have the same thing in common, not a single politician stepped froward and suggested we restrict the power of cars. But if a gun is used, they all come out of their between elections hiding places to get in front of the camera.

 

No need, it's already in writing, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

 

The government doesn't care about gun death either, which is why they do NOTHING to address (or even mention) places like Baltimore or Chicago.

We would have to have a mass murder like the most recent one every week to equal the misery that happens in Chicago every year.

What do you hear about that? Nothing. Not. One. Peep.

Why?

Because they are doing what they want them to do, which is continually slaughter each other.

Once they can get the rest of us killing each other, get a two way war on police, and plunge the country into chaos, they can put their final piece into play.

Laws to remove all our rights....for our own protection.

 

I think the answer is simpler than that. Any politician who even hints at limiting the top sped of a car or motorcycle would never get re elected, and this takes priority over any child's or adults safety.

 

The type of firearms still available in the nation of Australia are suitable for committing a mass shooting where multiple victims are left dead. Simply because one has not happened yet, does not mean that the system in place works.

There is also the fact that those who will commit mass shootings in the united states are far more creative than those in the nation of Australia.

- - - Updated - - -

And no other nation is land bordered to the nation of Mexico, which is embroiled in a massive drug war, where the cartels are cutting the heads off of rivals and innocents alike.

That is a fact that you, like many others, choose to ignore. Without being able to do anything about the nation of Mexico, enacting nationwide laws for the united states would be no more effective than one state enacting its own laws, while all the others around it do not follow.

 

is australia better at dealing with mental illness than is the US?

 

Please, you're parsing words in a very weak attempt to make sense. And just how is a serial number different from a registration number? Do tell. This should be good.