Not a damn one of those yappers has the backbone to do any such damn thing.
When guns are outlawed, only fish will have guns.
Great, I was scared enough of all those armed bears already.
Johnny, you sound like a reasonable person and it’s too bad you have to be inconvenienced. I don’t want you to have to wait to get a gun. But how do we set up a system where you can walk out of Walmart with unlimited guns yet prevent the guy who snapped from doing the same thing?
There is no way to create an all-knowing mental health database. Are you going to put everyone on it who has ever talked with a counselor? And how many of these crazies never talked to anyone? How many of them think everyone else has the problem and they are the solution? They just kept to themselves until they snap. I recognize it’s impossible to keep guns out of the hands of anyone who is or ever will be crazy. But I want regulations such that the damage he does when he snaps is minimized.
And for all the people standing up for the Second Amendment, there are no exceptions listed. It says “the right of the people shall not be infringed.” There’s no mention of “unless they are criminals, mentally unstable, or under the age of 18.” So it sounds hypocritical when you say any gun restriction is denying you your 2nd amendment freedom. You already support restrictions on it.
You don’t even have to be crazy to be a danger, just capable of getting really pissed off.
Let’s see what else is in the news today. Oh, here’s a story about a kid shooting at classmates..
Let’s think about ways that could have been prevented. If he didn’t have access to the gun, he wouldn’t have been able to shoot anyone. Why wasn’t the gun securely locked up? The gun owner should be facing a serious crime for leaving a gun out where it could be taken and used in a crime.
There could be more counselors at school. Maybe he would have talked through his problems.
The thing is, there will aways be human conflict. Some people will try to resolve the conflict with violence using the most effective means possible. If they can get a gun, they’ll use a gun. If they can’t, they’ll use the next best thing. But the things that aren’t guns aren’t great at killing people. If he shows up with a hammer or knife, he can’t just stand in front of the class killing people. If our society accepts gun ownership, then we must accept the responsibility for limiting the damage they can cause. I wish gun owners like Johnny LA and Oakminster were taking a stronger stand to reduce collateral damage from guns. But it’s so important to retain their unfettered access to guns that they are not willing to make any sacrifices to reduce these tragedies.
I’m starting to feel like a broken record, but let’s take a look at US gun deaths in 2009. Go to page 81. and scroll down to firearms. Here’s some math. 60% of the gun deaths were self-inflicted, 37% are homicide, and the remaining 3% is a combination of cops, war and dumbasses.
How do you take care of the 60% who want to do themselves in? If you take their guns I think it’s fair to say you’ll see an uptick in poisonings, train accidents and car crashes (probably involving innocent collateral damage). All you CAN do for them is to make mental health care more accessible and less stigmatic. This subject is its own Oprah, but apart from completely banning all guns and buying those already owned, how are you going to keep folks from offing themselves with whatever means is expedient?
And who are the 37% who do homicide by firearms? What type of guns are they using and where are they getting them? Let’s pretend they’re all handguns, and by some miracle we manage to get all handgun owners to come forward and register their guns and even provide a ballistic sample. Next day, a bunch of those guns get “lost/stolen” and reported within the required 36 hours or whatever. Guess what: once again we have a bunch of unregulated black-market boom with no way of telling who pulled the trigger, and we’re back to square one–only now we have a bunch of useless data about who the honest people are/might be.
Guns don’t kill people. Murderers and suicides do. Looking to the tool is ignoring the real problem.
I have no duty to you or anyone else to “reduce collateral damage from guns”. My guns have never been used contrary to existing law.
And they can be flagged by insurance companies! and lenders! and potential employers! and landlords! and your wife’s divorce attorney! Everybody wins. (Too bad about that time you needed a little counseling to get past a rough spot.)
Or that appearance on the Piers Morgan Show…
So you wouldn’t oppose a Responsible Gun Ownership Law, which makes owners responsible for their guns if they are stolen? A misdemeanor if used in a crime, a felony if anyone is injured or killed. Most gun crimes are committed with stolen guns; if gun owners were more responsible, gun crime could be reduced.
Sigh. Why would I be responsible for a criminal act committed by someone else? In that scenario, I would be a crime victim, because someone stole my property.
I doubt it. Most people who try to kill themselves don’t use guns, but most people who succeed do use guns. So there’s some reason to think that if these people don’t have access to guns, they won’t try to kill themselves or they won’t succeed if they try. And there’s no particular reason to think they’ll kill themselves by a means that kills other people.
It seems to me that just about everyone who is suggesting new guns laws (and many people who aren’t) are suggesting that this should happen, too.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to do here. You’ve proposed something unlikely and then beaten the hypothetical by imagining something even less likely.
Nonsense. There are not a lot of problems you can solve by addressing only one of the factors involved. Gun laws should be looked at and improved. The mental health system should be looked at and improved. These things are complex and no realistic person thinks gun deaths or suicides can be eliminated entirely, but that doesn’t mean nothing can be done and nothing should be attempted.
Instead, let’s do it to gun owners so that they can be flagged by insurance companies (higher rates), lenders (obviously gun owners are a risk, so let’s not loan them money or else charge higher interest), potential employers (‘There is no way I’m hiring a gun nut!’), landlords (Nope, not going to rent to that sort!), and your wife’s divorce attorney (‘Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. The husband has shown himself to be responsible in every way. However as a gun owner, he is a clear and present threat.’) And while we’re at it, let’s publish gun owners’ names in the newspaper so that gun-seeking burglars know which houses to target, and timid burglars know which houses are safe.
Responsible gun owners should take reasonable means to ensure their guns do not fall into criminal hands. Just leaving them in your house or in the gun rack of your pickup isn’t enough.
I would say your guns should be secured such that the typical burglary would not be able to remove them from your house. That is, the typical smash-and-grab where they quickly take anything of value. Your guns should be secured in a safe or other means which would require great effort by the burglar to remove. If he’s determined and takes your guns anyway, the police file that in the report (crooks cut through gun safe) and you’re off the hook. But if they just take them off your mantle, you’re in trouble.
But who decides what’s constitutional and what isn’t?
If the answer is anyone who owns a gun can decide for themselves what laws they want to obey and ignore any laws they don’t like, then that right there seems like a good argument for gun control. Nobody should be above the law - not police officers, not Presidents, and not gun owners.
Lots of talk about registering firearms as a potential solution. The point of registration, I presume, is to be able to identify who owns what–so let’s build a feasible layer of security into registration and have a ballistics sample so we can work backward to the owner using only a spent murderbullet. Ok? Not so crazy? And registration is really most effective if all guns are registered–otherwise what’s the point? So that was built in to the hypothetical. Once ownership of guns is known, there is a black market demand for non-owned guns. Do you really think that market will go unsupplied? Who’s buying? I dunno, gangbangers, pissed off Jimmy who wants to shoot his old lady for messin’ 'round, gun nuts who don’t feel like the gubmint should know what kind of heat they own…? I don’t really see how it’s all that far-fetched, but I’d be willing to listen.
The OP may have meant it as a joke, but it seems to be based on a real, or at least contemplated, idea. I think it harms the credibility of “responsible” gun owners, even (although less so) when said in jest.
And I would say that’s a stupid idea.
That’s a reasonable point. Are any of those things happening regularly (aside from the newspaper publication, which has been condemned from all sides)? After all, shouldn’t insurance companies and lenders be tickled pink that your home and family are so well defended?