The Official Second Amendment / Gun Ban Thread

[AcmeSigns 97]

Along Nonny's thoughts...I think that each member of Congress (both the House & the Senate) should be allowed to introduce only one piece of legislation per year. While 535 may sound like as lot a first glance it sure beats the 11.970 bills or resolutions they kicked out in 2011 (source: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/ ).

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

If there were that many bills, there is obviously no requirement to read each one three times in the chamber, verbatim. I believe that would be impossible.

In Parliament, each bill is read (or tabled for reading) first on introduction, next on being passed out of committee, and finally to be voted to become law if it makes it that far. Large omnibus bills are not read, but published and members are expected to read them in detail.

On each reading, a bill is subject to being amended by the House. After passage in the House the Senate gets a similar crack at it, and not before it passes the House. It is only after a bill has passed through the House of Commons and the Senate that it is presented to the crown in the person of the Governor General for the signature that will put it on the books. And before someone asks, he does have a rarely used veto power.

Now tell me the process is the same in Congress. How do they manage to get through all that work and still have time to stab each other in the back?

[krbe 193]

These 11,000 resolutions/bills/etc. that are tracked on that site aren't all actual laws/acts that are to be presented to Congress, rather the feeble attempts of every congressman and his dog to seem like they're doing something. Like recognising some blokes that colonised an island for seven years. Or one that has to do with guns: HR 677 (2011-2012), which is a nod to the Supreme Court doing its job in the way a particular representative sees fit. These bills have to pass through committees and stuff before the rest of the party(ies) has to be bothered.

The amount of pending legislation is mind gobbling. I fear actual legislation (beneath acts status) churned out by the bureaucrats are being lost on the electorate

On a side note, the number of laws passed (all types, both by parliament and the administration), is somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 here in Denmark. The last couple of days 14 new or changed sets of rules, including one act. At a time when Parliament really should be bothered with the budget.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Attaboys and such are simply read out in Parliament at the beginning of each session. They wind up in Hansard but don't go any farther. Any member can read anything during the 'Statements by Members" period which is usually the first order of the day followed by Question Period during which the opposition usually tries to hold the feet of the government to the fire.

Since the Cabinet in the US doesn't sit in either house except in formal positions and not as elected members, a question period in either the House of Representatives or the Senate would not work. You need to have the warm bodies with full constituencies sitting there ready to defend the government's actions to have such a thing. What a shame the Congress lacks such an opportunity. Too much stuff is sorted out in camera then cast before Congress like slops before pigs.

[AcmeSigns 97]

There's a quote by then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in regards to the 'Affordable Care Act' (ObamaCare) that pretty much sums up the way Congress works here.

'We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it'.

John Conyers (D-MI) stated that, 'What good is reading the bill if it's thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?'

(Source: http://www.ontheissues.org/MI/John_Conyers_Health_Care.htm )

The 'Affordable Care Act' is nearly 2,000 pages. I guess that means that most, if not all, of the legislators in Congress didn't read it before they voted on it.

And. least anyone forget, the 'Affordable Care Act' was written entirely by the Democrats with no input from the Republicans (they were basically shuttered from the meetings) and voted on and passed along party lines. This from an administration and a Congress (Democratically controlled at the time) that was going to work across the aisle. Four years on and I'm still waiting.

This administration (Obama) was touted as being 'transparent'. That all bills would be posted online for the citizens to read for, at least, 72 hours before a vote. Yeah...right.

Back to the subject at hand.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The only hope for an omnibus bill like that is a good 'Executive Summary' of one page or less right after the title. The devil is in the details.

As for gun control: It is not gun control you need, but people control. No one should be able to purchase a fire arm without a Firearms Acquisition Certificate signed off by the proper authorities after a serious check. The same applies to ammunition.

Such certification must include a criminal records check, a security check, and a psychological evaluation.

This is not gun control. This is owner control. Anyone caught with an uncontrolled fire arm, even if unloaded, should be guilty of a felony. There are times when freedom of expression does not include expressing a firearm. This is the same concept as licensing automobile drivers except that the permit is tied to a specific piece.

[Meg 368]

Sadly, this is another case for a long record of this kind of events in the United States.

Time to stop this madness, don't you think US-american people?

How would that work?

Please don't say "make guns illegal". It is obvious that the US government can not stop us from obtaining items, legal or not. (See "Prohibition" and "war on drugs".)

I believe that any attempt to confiscate firearms on a widespread scale would result in armed rebellion.

If anyone has ideas, I'm happy to hear them.

[astronelson 339]

I feel the only way this is going to change is with a change in the American psyche. And, while stronger legislation against weapons no-one should rightfully have is required (assault rifles, for example - I can not conceive of a reason, aside from murder, why a civilian would need one), it needs to be paired with societal change, and this goes far beyond the powers of the government to enact.

America comes across as a very paranoid country. Through history it has feared many things, including, but not limited to, witches, the British, France, Canada, Mexico, the other half of the country, Japan, Germany, Russia, communists, China, terrorists, and fear itself. This stems, I suppose, from the intense focus the country has on personal independence - "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". While personal independence is a fine thing, I feel it has been taken beyond that, becoming more "I've got mine, you take care of your own". This itself has led to a fear that someone will take what's theirs, which begets a desire to defend themselves and their property, both at any cost and with the best tools available.

I believe this "I've got mine" mentality has also led to the US's approach to healthcare, but I think we have another thread entirely for that somewhere.

The country needs to become less afraid. This is the primary challenge, and with events like the recent shooting (an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut - sadly, given how this year has gone, I can almost guarantee there will be another one before too long), it is made all the harder.

"Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering."

[LexusInfernus 908]

A few things the US could do.

Make guns and munition prohibitively expensive by reducing the number that is available and by setting up quotas and minimum prices.

Restrict the kind of guns that are available to everyone. For example, only sell actual hunting rifles and then the kind that is not even semi automatic. People can still go hunting that way, but its a horribly inefficient gun to use for illegal purposes. No more handguns for pretty much anyone. Though they may be used for self defense, their potential to end up in the hands of the wrong people is just to big to justify their use in self defense.

Install licenses. People who want to hunt need to get a hunting license first for each season. And in order to get a license, people need a statement from a psychiatrist saying they are mentally fit and they need a police background check and proof that they lock their gun away in a safe manner.

And then if people really feel that the US government is so unreliable that armed militias are required, create a special license for registered militias, as long as they undergo a background check and mental health evaluations, and guns need to be locked away safely at the militia HQ. A militia license includes permits for types other than hunting rifles (semi automatic rifles).

This way guns arent illegal, upstanding citizens can still acquire them, militias remain armed, but they are more expensive, harder to conceal, the types of guns publicly available are less efficient in illegal situations and you reduce the chance of them ending up in the wrong hands. I think this is the closest the US can get to gun safety short from an all out ban.

Oh, as for getting such measures passed. The government will have to play it a little dirty by using the emotions current events have created. Just call out everyone who opposes measures people who support gun violence against children. 'Oh people from the NRA, you dont want to support stricter measures? Well, its thanks to people like you 20 kids got shot! Look everyone, the NRA hate little children because they dont want to support measures that would prevent these kind of massacres from happening!' I know, its hitting below the belt, but the time to play nice with them has passed.

[Duke87 1,070]

This cartoon makes a point succinctly:

Part of the problem people have is that we tend to want to point to one thing to blame for something. But, as the saying goes, no plane ever fell out of the sky because one thing went wrong. Any catastrophe always has multiple things that contribute to it occurring.

In the case of mass shootings, naturally the ready availability of guns in the US makes it easier to do such a thing. But, guns are just tools. They provide the means, but not the motive. The recurring theme always seems to be that these shooters have mental issues which went unaddressed. And that is in and of itself a huge societal problem - for every EDP who grabs a gun and goes postal on some public place, there are 1,000 more who would never do such a thing but still need help. Many of them are not getting it because their family doesn't care, doesn't notice there's a problem, or cannot afford the required help.

And, of course, the media coverage of such events only encourages them because it allows the killer to get attention - something which they have been sorely lacking. Note how these sorts of mass shootings are mostly a recent phenomenon. 100 years ago, guns were not more difficult to obtain (if anything it was easier), and there weren't fewer crazy people out there. But there were no TV cameras - no radio, even. So the same public sensation wouldn't occur.

The problem of violence in America cannot be addressed by attacking just one thing. It is worth, perhaps, reexamining what guns we allow people to own and what we require of their owners. But it is also worth reexamining how we treat individuals who have issues (be they mental, familial, economic...) both on a societal level and on a government policy level. And while we cannot censor them, the press needs to take some responsibility for their behavior about stories like this.

[7238320 77]

Some numbers to back up Duke 87's point:

PS: I am pro mental health. I'm not opining on either side of the 'gun debate'.

[Cobraroll 138]

Wasn't the last one the sixty-first shootout in the US in the past twenty years in which more than four people died?

I'll not be one to propose solutions to this mess, but I'll certainly say that the current system doesn't work very well. The guns themselves might not be the main problem, but they sure as heck magnify the other issues leading to murder. I've said it before in this thread, and I say it again (paraphrased): Guns are the best tools for killing people, and hardly useful for anything else (except maybe threaten to kill people, by their mere presence). It's a lot easier and (to put it bluntly) practical to use guns if you're going to kill somebody, than almost anything else. They make it a matter of "point and click". I agree that people would still try to murder each other in a world with no guns, but they wouldn't have an as easy time doing it as they currently do.

[hym 358]

Oh, as for getting such measures passed. The government will have to play it a little dirty by using the emotions current events have created. Just call out everyone who opposes measures people who support gun violence against children. 'Oh people from the NRA, you dont want to support stricter measures? Well, its thanks to people like you 20 kids got shot! Look everyone, the NRA hate little children because they dont want to support measures that would prevent these kind of massacres from happening!' I know, its hitting below the belt, but the time to play nice with them has passed.

The NRA will hit back with something even harder: the force of law and the courts. The Supreme Court has effectively nullified the idea that anyone can create an absolute gun ban. Furthermore, as a result of the Supreme Court's ruling, Chicago is watching it's concealed carry gun ban be overturned. The growing opinion in the federal courts is that Americans have the right to own a firearm, and it is unconstitutional for the government to restrict firearm ownership without sufficient cause or otherwise attempt to hinder an individual's ability to acquire and own a firearm. All of the suggestions provide can easily be argued as government interference in an individual's right to own a firearm.

[AcmeSigns 97]

Some of the statements hear sound as though they come from people who have never tasted 'true' freedom.

And to:

astronelson...an 'assault rifle' by it's purest definition is select fire...meaning that it has the capability of semi-auto (one trigger pull = one bullet fired), 3 round burst or full auto. None of the .223 caliber weapons used in the recent shootings have been 'assault rifles'...just semi-auto carbines. There has, I believe, only been one instance in the U.S. history of a legally-owned, fully-automatic weapon being used in a crime and it was perpetrated by an ex-police officer.

LexusInfernus...Lee Harvey Oswald used a 6.5x52mm bolt action Carcano Model 31/98 rifle (yes, it was originally an infantry rifle but many such weapons...the M-1 Garand comes to mind...were later converted to civilian use for hunting) to assassinate President Kennedy in 1963 so, if the urge is there, any weapon can be used for any means. I could, if I really needed to, use a baseball bat or a rock to kill people. OK...not very efficiently. Perhaps a car would be a better choice for multiple murders. I guess that there should be restrictions on those items as well?

[astronelson 339]

Some of the statements hear sound as though they come from people who have never tasted 'true' freedom.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. Please elaborate.

And to:

astronelson...an 'assault rifle' by it's purest definition is select fire...meaning that it has the capability of semi-auto (one trigger pull = one bullet fired), 3 round burst or full auto. None of the .223 caliber weapons used in the recent shootings have been 'assault rifles'...just semi-auto carbines. There has, I believe, only been one instance in the U.S. history of a legally-owned, fully-automatic weapon being used in a crime and it was perpetrated by an ex-police officer.

So, probably kill what you're aiming at, definitely kill what you're aiming at, and don't bother aiming. And I never said they were - I was using an assault rifle as an example of something no-one outside the armed forces has any need for, and that point still stands.

I could, if I really needed to, use a baseball bat or a rock to kill people. OK...not very efficiently. Perhaps a car would be a better choice for multiple murders. I guess that there should be restrictions on those items as well?

There are restrictions on who can own a car - it's called a license, you need to pass a test to get it, and misuse carries significant penalties.

Regardless, cars, rocks, and baseball bats were not designed to be weapons. Guns were. Additionally, nothing aside from a gun allows targeted, efficient killing of multiple people in quick succession, in almost environments, with a low chance of prior detection.

[Meg 368]

Cars, rocks, knives, baseball bats, etc can kill but they can't kill that many people that quickly.

Neither could the rifles used by the men who wrote the Constitution. Didn't those things take a minute to reload?

[AcmeSigns 97]

Contrary to popular belief, you do NOT need a license to 'own' a car. Anyone can buy a vehicle from another without any proof of license, insurance, etc. A license requirement is just a requisition mandated by the Government. If anyone bothered to look, I'll bet you can find any number of instances on a daily basis wherein someone was arrested/cited/whatever for driving without a license. In fact, the only time not having a license even comes into bearing is when you do something to attract the eye of the law. Otherwise, how does anyone know if you have a license to operate a motor vehicle or not? Do you seriously for a moment think that any of the serial shooters of late ever had a concern of 'penalties'? There was clearly something more wrong going on than their access to guns. My question in the case of the Newtown incident would be why didn't his Mother lock her guns up if, as is being reported, she had to quit her job so she look after her 20+ year old son?

I've been a gun owner for over 40 of my 63 years. I know what I can and can't legally do, responsibility-wise, with any of the guns I own. Many of the guns I own are semi-automatic. If I could afford the hefty fees that go along with owning a fully automatic weapon (yes, as a U.S. citizen the Federal Government allows us me the right to legally own such weapons ~ it's just the states such as California that restrict that right) and the high cost of such weapons I would slapping my money down in a heartbeat.

Why, you might ask, would I need such a weapon? What purpose could I have for it? The answer is quite simple...it isn't what I 'need', it is what I 'want' that matters. Does every human being on the planet need a Smart Phone? I doubt it...but everyone seems intent on having one. I'll bet that any number of us here could go through their possessions and find any number of things they don't 'need' and yet they still have them. Why? For the simple matter that they wanted them.

astronelson...my comment was aimed at those who don't have the same Constitutional rights that those of us in the United States enjoy. It's all to easy to judge and say, 'ban this, ban that, restrict this, restrict that' but until you've had the rights we here in the U.S. enjoy you can't really begin to fathom just how dearly you hold those rights to be. Irregardless of which country anyone is from...if you have the right of free speech (the ability to freely speak out against your Government without fear of retribution) think how you would feel if your Government suddenly decided to ban or restrict that right (just think of Pussy Riot in Russia). And any allegory to 'you can't kill people with speech' won't really hold water because that isn't what I'm talking about here. The United States Constitution gives its citizens certain, inalienable rights. To me, they all hold an equal amount of importance. If the Government takes a right away they will never give it back.

Meg...a good militiaman could reload and fire a Musket 3 times in a minute. If I decided to drive my 2 ton, American-made, full-size pickup truck into a crowd of people at full speed (100+ MPH) just think of the carnage I could inflict. With the right size crowd I could put any mass murderers numbers to shame. But I can't/won't/don't do that. Much like I'd never open fire on a bunch of unarmed people.

[GMT 389]

The only hope for an omnibus bill like that is a good 'Executive Summary' of one page or less right after the title. The devil is in the details.

As for gun control: It is not gun control you need, but people control. No one should be able to purchase a fire arm without a Firearms Acquisition Certificate signed off by the proper authorities after a serious check. The same applies to ammunition.

Such certification must include a criminal records check, a security check, and a psychological evaluation.

This is not gun control. This is owner control. Anyone caught with an uncontrolled fire arm, even if unloaded, should be guilty of a felony. There are times when freedom of expression does not include expressing a firearm. This is the same concept as licensing automobile drivers except that the permit is tied to a specific piece.

just my thought.

here in Germany, we have considerably restrictive gun laws with thorough background checks and even the legal requirement to "have learned" the use of guns aka you have to be a member of a gun club for at least a year and pass several theoretical and practical tests prior to being legally allowed to own handguns. plus several restrictions on the type and amount of guns you can own, the way you have to transport and store them, blabla...

yet people get shot and others go on shooting sprees.

I think I said it already earlier in this thread, but it's not the gun that kills. never was, never will be.

It's the person using it that kills.

And if you take the legal guns away, they use illegal guns; something way worse than legal guns imho because as long as it stays legal, you can somewhat control it and act accordingly.

And if you take the illegal guns away, they use kitchen knifes, sticks, stones, tools, cars or even their bare hands.

There's always people trying to kill each other and no matter what you do as a state to prevent it in certain ways, they'll always find another way to succeed. period.

granted, whichever way you take to block the legal circulation of weapons slows them down, but you'll only cure the symptoms, not the disease itself.

[LexusInfernus 908]

The NRA will hit back with something even harder: the force of law and the courts. The Supreme Court has effectively nullified the idea that anyone can create an absolute gun ban. Furthermore, as a result of the Supreme Court's ruling, Chicago is watching it's concealed carry gun ban be overturned. The growing opinion in the federal courts is that Americans have the right to own a firearm, and it is unconstitutional for the government to restrict firearm ownership without sufficient cause or otherwise attempt to hinder an individual's ability to acquire and own a firearm. All of the suggestions provide can easily be argued as government interference in an individual's right to own a firearm.

I know, I was referring this in relation to what I see as solutions. Non of those include an absolute gun ban. Just making it harder to get the guns without making them illegal.

Also, I kind of like the idea of making munition more expensive.

Some of the statements hear sound as though they come from people who have never tasted 'true' freedom.

LexusInfernus...Lee Harvey Oswald used a 6.5x52mm bolt action Carcano Model 31/98 rifle (yes, it was originally an infantry rifle but many such weapons...the M-1 Garand comes to mind...were later converted to civilian use for hunting) to assassinate President Kennedy in 1963 so, if the urge is there, any weapon can be used for any means. I could, if I really needed to, use a baseball bat or a rock to kill people. OK...not very efficiently. Perhaps a car would be a better choice for multiple murders. I guess that there should be restrictions on those items as well?

I never said that such measures are absolute and will prevent things like this completely. But even if you just reduce the number of gun related deaths by half, which should definitely be possible, wouldnt that already be a victory?

Well, for cars, yes I believe you should have a license to operate one. As for anything that is big, large and has the capacity to cause a lot of damage, kill or wound people if handled improperly. It would definitely improve the overall safety. But yeah, everything can be turned into a weapon. However, most of those things dont have 'killing stuff' as a primary purpose. Guns do.

And while you might 'want' weapons, for the sake of the overall good of society sometimes individual wants need to be sacrificed. I 'want' a fully functioning Leopard II tank but for good reasons I cant have one. To bad for me. My 'wants' are of less importance than the security of the people around me that I would endanger by owning a tank.

As for the mental health argument. Its nice, and would be great if people had easier access to mental health facilities. However, that by itself is not much of a solution. As this recent tragedy shows, it probably wouldnt have mattered. Also, I wouldnt put my trust in the pill industry that western mental healthcare has become. That stuff is as likely to make you crazy as it is to keep you calm and sane.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14702226

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/184/1/41.full

And they prescribe that stuff like its candy. Before more mental health care becomes a viable option, it must first increase in quality.

[Duke87 1,070]

astronelson...my comment was aimed at those who don't have the same Constitutional rights that those of us in the United States enjoy. It's all to easy to judge and say, 'ban this, ban that, restrict this, restrict that' but until you've had the rights we here in the U.S. enjoy you can't really begin to fathom just how dearly you hold those rights to be. Irregardless of which country anyone is from...if you have the right of free speech (the ability to freely speak out against your Government without fear of retribution) think how you would feel if your Government suddenly decided to ban or restrict that right

Ehm, news flash: that's happened here, too. Look on YouTube for videos of OWS protesters getting beat up by police. There are plenty. What was that about speaking out without fear of retribution?

The US Constitution would be a wonderful thing if it were actually followed. Problem is, often it's not. We do not actually enjoy all the rights we are theoretically supposed to.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

When is insistence on 'freedom' licentiousness?

Even the Supreme Court of the U.S. has ruled it is illegal to yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre, notwithstanding the First Amendment.

There are two kinds of guns: Long guns; and hand guns. Only hand guns need be present in urban settings except for authorized peace keepers, and similar. Long guns are basically tools for farmers and hunters. Hunting in general is not permitted in urban areas, so if an urban resident has a long gun, a hunting licence should go with it. Private citizens should not carry a loaded long gun in town.

All guns are, as someone said, a point and click device. It is too easy to kill someone at a distance. Up close and personal with other weapons will give some people pause, but probably won't stop anyone bent on murder. Man's inhumanity to man is legion.

Someone else made my point that the founding fathers definition of 'arms' is not ours. Even a single shot rifle was beyond them. It was the infancy of the technology. The law has failed to keep up with technology as usual. However, some retrograde steps could be taken with respect to 'weapons of war' define them how you will. No one not authorized by authority should have possession of 'weapons of war'.

[AcmeSigns 97]

Duke87...I have neither the inclination nor the time to waste looking at YouTube videos of people behaving badly. But, from what I recall of the OWS folks, if they were 'getting beat up by police' it was probably because they were not having a 'peaceful demonstration' but were either acting violently or not obeying whatever directions the police had given them, hence causing the 'beat down'. I'm no fan of a 'police state' by any means (I'm a firm believer in questioning authority any chance I get) but if you intentionally put yourself in a volatile situation then you shouldn't be all that surprised, or enraged, when things go wrong, as they most likely will. I seriously doubt that they were beaten simply because of 'speech' that they used, no matter how derogatory or vitriol-filled it may have been. But you are in New York...perhaps you have a better perspective on the whole OWS situation than I do.

[hym 358]

I know, I was referring this in relation to what I see as solutions. Non of those include an absolute gun ban. Just making it harder to get the guns without making them illegal.

Also, I kind of like the idea of making munition more expensive.

This misses the point. Not only is an absolute gun ban unconstitutional, but there is growing opinion that it is unconstitutional for the government to impair my access to a gun. In other words, if I apply for a permit to own a handgun, I have the right to expect that, not only will I not be subject to needless bureaucratic overhead, but upon successful acquisition of the handgun, the government will not unreasonably impair my ability to own and use my handgun.

[LexusInfernus 908]

I know, I was referring this in relation to what I see as solutions. Non of those include an absolute gun ban. Just making it harder to get the guns without making them illegal.

Also, I kind of like the idea of making munition more expensive.

This misses the point. Not only is an absolute gun ban unconstitutional, but there is growing opinion that it is unconstitutional for the government to impair my access to a gun. In other words, if I apply for a permit to own a handgun, I have the right to expect that, not only will I not be subject to needless bureaucratic overhead, but upon successful acquisition of the handgun, the government will not unreasonably impair my ability to own and use my handgun.

All I pointed out were theoretically possible ways of reducing the number of gun related deaths in the US without banning guns completely and getting rid of militias. Thus, finding a way that would be compatible with the second amendment of the constitution.

But if thats what people want, they should not be surprised or outraged when some nut goes on a shooting spree and kills a bunch of children. Every choice has consequences, and unrestricted gun access will have a higher gun murder rate as a consequence. It would be sad though, that even a tragedy like this would still be incapable of showing people that perhaps the wide accessibility of guns is a very bad idea.

[hym 358]

All I pointed out were theoretically possible ways of reducing the number of gun related deaths in the US without banning guns completely and getting rid of militias. Thus, finding a way that would be compatible with the second amendment of the constitution.

But if thats what people want, they should not be surprised or outraged when some nut goes on a shooting spree and kills a bunch of children. Every choice has consequences, and unrestricted gun access will have a higher gun murder rate as a consequence. It would be sad though, that even a tragedy like this would still be incapable of showing people that perhaps the wide accessibility of guns is a very bad idea.

This still approaches the issue from the "guns are bad and no one needs to have one" viewpoint, which is part of the reason gun control advocates face such stiff resistance. A far better approach is to address the issue from a "we support the right to own guns, but we think these are reasonable regulations to have in place for everyone's benefit" viewpoint. I suspect that the pro-gun community would be much more receptive to regulation if it was designed to help guarantee gun holder rights also. Exactly what that would look like, I don't know, but I happened to come up with this hypothetical regulatory process in about 5 minutes and think that strikes a reasonable balance between supporting gun holder rights and attempting to provide sufficient regulation.

-Would-be gun owner applies for general issue gun permit, effectively notifying authorities of his intent to purchase a gun. Furthermore, applicant pays fee to conduct comprehensive background check.

-While applicant awaits approval/denial, he is free to begin a general course on firearm ownership and specific training on the weapon(s) he intends to purchase. (All courses certified by the state or other appropriate authority.)

-Upon approval of the general issue gun permit and successful completion of training course(s), the would-be owner can present the associated documents and purchase the firearm(s) he has trained to use.

-If the general issue permit is denied, the authority must explain why the application was denied. If there is a legal means to clear the restriction that denied the permit, this must be clearly explained to the applicant.

-If 30 days have passed since the date of application and the relevant authority has found no reason to deny the general issue permit, the application must be approved.

-Every five years, the gun owner must pass a certification test demonstrating continued ability to use the firearm(s) in a responsible manner.

[LexusInfernus 908]

This still approaches the issue from the "guns are bad and no one needs to have one" viewpoint, which is part of the reason gun control advocates face such stiff resistance. A far better approach is to address the issue from a "we support the right to own guns, but we think these are reasonable regulations to have in place for everyone's benefit" viewpoint. I suspect that the pro-gun community would be much more receptive to regulation if it was designed to help guarantee gun holder rights also. Exactly what that would look like, I don't know, but I happened to come up with this hypothetical regulatory process in about 5 minutes and think that strikes a reasonable balance between supporting gun holder rights and attempting to provide sufficient regulation.

Sure, but guns ARE bad. There is even scientific evidence suggesting that countries with a lot of guns have higher homicide rates. And while pro gun people might not like to hear that, its a simple statistical fact that more people die from guns in the US than in any other Western country. And by quite a significant margin as well.

-Would-be gun owner applies for general issue gun permit, effectively notifying authorities of his intent to purchase a gun. Furthermore, applicant pays fee to conduct comprehensive background check.

-While applicant awaits approval/denial, he is free to begin a general course on firearm ownership and specific training on the weapon(s) he intends to purchase. (All courses certified by the state or other appropriate authority.)

-Upon approval of the general issue gun permit and successful completion of training course(s), the would-be owner can present the associated documents and purchase the firearm(s) he has trained to use.

-If the general issue permit is denied, the authority must explain why the application was denied. If there is a legal means to clear the restriction that denied the permit, this must be clearly explained to the applicant.

-If 30 days have passed since the date of application and the relevant authority has found no reason to deny the general issue permit, the application must be approved.

-Every five years, the gun owner must pass a certification test demonstrating continued ability to use the firearm(s) in a responsible manner.

While its a really decent set up, it only filters out people with a history of mental illness and people with a criminal record. The guy that shot all those people in Aurora for example, would have had no trouble getting the guns he used, as he had no history in mental illness or a criminal record. Or this guy, who got all the guns from his mom. All such measures do is make it more difficult for people to purchase guns from stores, but in the end that hardly matters in a country where a lot of families have guns and people can simply use the guns their family members already own.

In the end, the solution lies with less guns overall. And if that doesnt happen, then there will be no significant decrease in people getting killed by guns, and its only a matter of time before the next psycho goes on a rampage.

[AcmeSigns 97]

Approximately 1/3 of the U.S. population has one or more guns in their homes. The FBI figures that there are over 200 million privately-owned firearms in the U.S. I'd like to hear how anyone would go about taking those weapons away from their rightful owners. Sure, you could ask people to turn their firearms in...and there will be a small percentage that will...the the majority of gun owners? I'm betting not.

Oh...and that 1/3 part? Those are just the guns that the Government knows about. Or think they know about. There are probably another 50-100 million (I'm just guessing here) weapons out there that the only ones who know about them are their owners. An awful lot of guns that were acquired 'way back when' (before the Gun Control Act of 1968) were passed down from family member to family member.

LexusInfernus does have a valid point in his '...its only a matter of time before the next psycho goes on a rampage' statement though. A better discussion than how to eliminate guns would be to address the mental health problem that no one is willing to admit exists in this country.

[hym 358]

Sure, but guns ARE bad.

This is an opinion. It is my opinion that guns are no more "bad" than cars. They are tools towards the realization of a desired state. Nothing more.

While its a really decent set up, it only filters out people with a history of mental illness and people with a criminal record. The guy that shot all those people in Aurora for example, would have had no trouble getting the guns he used, as he had no history in mental illness or a criminal record. Or this guy, who got all the guns from his mom. All such measures do is make it more difficult for people to purchase guns from stores, but in the end that hardly matters in a country where a lot of families have guns and people can simply use the guns their family members already own.

My suggestion is meant as an example to demonstrate that it is entirely possible to craft reasonable gun control legislation that can work towards the betterment of both sides of the issue.

[Duke87 1,070]

I have neither the inclination nor the time to waste looking at YouTube videos of people behaving badly. But, from what I recall of the OWS folks, if they were 'getting beat up by police' it was probably because they were not having a 'peaceful demonstration' but were either acting violently or not obeying whatever directions the police had given them, hence causing the 'beat down'. I'm no fan of a 'police state' by any means (I'm a firm believer in questioning authority any chance I get) but if you intentionally put yourself in a volatile situation then you shouldn't be all that surprised, or enraged, when things go wrong, as they most likely will. I seriously doubt that they were beaten simply because of 'speech' that they used, no matter how derogatory or vitriol-filled it may have been. But you are in New York...perhaps you have a better perspective on the whole OWS situation than I do.

The OWS situation is complex. Yes, the OWS protesters broke rules, and that lead to them clashing with police. But for them, breaking those rules was in its own way a manner of civil disobedience. The city of New York and NYPD at every turn were actively working to quash the protests. And pretty much everyone who lived or worked downtown hated having them there and wanted them gone. The whole affair was seen as a disruptive nuisance that needed to be stopped, not as people exercising their right to peacefully assemble. The protests could have gone on without incident if the city were willing to work with the group on the necessary permitting, crowd control, etc. - but they were not. Instead, the city actively denied permit applications from OWS, and when the protesters showed up anyway, they sent the police to harass them for protesting without a permit. The system was blatantly rigged against them, and everyone involved knew it. They couldn't play by the rules because playing by the rules meant shutting up and going home.

Of course, I'm not going to claim that the protesters are free of fault. The mindset in that group of people is that they are poor oppressed victims and it is self-validation for them to get beat up by the police (who they see as working for the enemy). I have witnessed protesters taunting cops and egging them on. That's generally not a good idea if you want to leave the scene unbruised and unhandcuffed.

And then you have the matter that the cops themselves are generally conservative and have an inherent dislike for any liberal protesters.

There is even scientific evidence suggesting that countries with a lot of guns have higher homicide rates. And while pro gun people might not like to hear that, its a simple statistical fact that more people die from guns in the US than in any other Western country. And by quite a significant margin as well.

That may be true. But it's pointless to debate about it since you can't remove guns from the US any more than you can cure a herpes infection. It sucks to have it, but if you do, you have no choice but to live with it and figure out how to manage living with it. The US would be better if we did not have guns, no doubt - but nothing the government can do can make that happen. Our government has been trying for decades to eradicate drugs from this country ("war on drugs") and has nothing to show for their efforts except overcrowded prisons. A "war on guns" would be similarly Sisyphean.

[Cockatoo 2,256]

Here in Australia we have some of the most restrictive firearm laws in the world, laws which enjoy the support of both major political parties and about 85% of the general population. Guns are incredibly hard to come by and you need to jump through a lot of hoops to get one. There is no such a thing as a dedicated 'gun store'.

Essentially, guns are owned by just four groups: the police, the hardcore crims (gangs), some farmers and a small population of heavily regulated sport shooters/ hunters. Gangs only shoot at police or at other gangs and police only shoot when in danger. The concept of carrying a gun for protection in urban areas is unheard of in the general population. Civilian gun-related deaths are extremely uncommon. We still experience violent crime, but a massacre (via any means, not just a gun) is probably a once in a 50-100 year event.

In my opinion, and a lot of you will disagree with me, there is only two differences between Australia and America when it comes to this issue.

The first, quite obviously, is gun culture. We're both developed, westernised nations, otherwise culturally very similar. We both experience crime, we both experience mental illness. But in the States, a gun culture exists, a culture that idolises the devices themselves, glorifies their use through the mass media, and, through continual lobbying, keeps them readily available to the general public. And this nut job's mom. In Australia, well she would be called 'mum' for a start, but more importantly, she wouldn’t have a gun ready and for the taking by her mentally ill son. This would be because owning one would be culturally inappropriate but more importantly, completely unnecessary.

The second difference is patriotism surrounding a constitution. From what I can gather, most Americans are quite patriotic toward their constitution, and even to an American in support of some degree of gun control, the idea of 'violating the constitution' is a very socially unacceptable idea at any level. In Australia we are, arguably, more open to allowing high level change of this nature.

To summarise my thoughts: gun culture + patriotically based reluctance to regulate = high level of accessibility and knowledge of firearms to general population (X)

mental illness + X = this.

When I step back remove the variables, I can only come to the awnser that guns are the problem. Regulation is the only solution, but I understand this is so much easier said than done in a country like America.

Additionally, in response to the use of the word 'freedom' earlier in this thread. I'm glad I have the 'freedom' (yes, it’s a culturally loaded word) to enjoy my life without the presence of devices specifically designed to take it away. I don't enjoy the 'freedom' of being able to take another's life at a whim, which I'm also glad for. And hell, I can still shoot at bits of clay or wild pigs if I really want to... but I don't.

edit: sorry if this post doesn't follow the discussion well, these are just my thoughts of the moment.