Right, which is kinda the crux of the matter, no? So then the only measure that would really work is to take away guns from everyone, one I am not comfortable with.
Well, it seems like somewhere between a nearly unlimited free-for-all access to firearms and taking them away from everyone is some kind of, whatchacallit, excluded middle?
Not necessarily. What we need is a better filter. Perhaps make guns a little harder to get. Take an example of becoming a private pilot. It’s available to anyone who completes an extensive training course. Not only does the training teach the person to be a good pilot, it filters out people who are not dedicated and meticulous enough to be a responsible pilot. This means that the people who get their pilot’s license are the type of people who can fly responsibly.
Right now anyone without a criminal/mental background can get a gun. There’s nothing to filter out the irresponsible people from getting guns.
Another thing might be to make irresponsible gun use another restriction of gun ownership like criminal/mental issues. This way gun owners will think twice before doing stupid things with their guns.
This.
Thank you for posting what I was thinking.
No…I get that and I agree with it. I was replying to the assertion that an ordinary, level-headed CCW guy is not a criminal…until he is. There’s really nothing to be done about that short of removing guns from everyone.
In this case, perhaps we could have made use of some kind of prohibition for anyone who uses the term “thug music” or who buys wine from gas stations.
In general, anyone who is a doughy middle aged white guy should have to undergo extra scrutiny before being allowed a firearm.
Right. If he doesn’t have a gun, he can’t use it. But there could be ways to get guns out of the hands of the subset people who cannot handle stressful situations in a calm manner.
For example, a guy who blows a gasket because someone cut him off in traffic might use his gun irresponsibly in similar situations. It would be good if there were some way to filter him out of gun ownership. Maybe part of the gun license class could involve how he responds to stressful situations.
Don’t police go through something like that? I think they are trained on how to diffuse a stressful situation so that a gun is not necessary. It would be good if gun owners were required to go through a similar kind of training and have to meet some standard. That way the only people with guns are the people who can handle stressful situations in an appropriate manner. It wouldn’t get rid of 100% of the problems, but it would reduce the number of people who are most likely to cause a problem.
PPP Is reporting that 5 Senators have taken quite a hit in the polls due to their voting against background checks. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_BackgroundChecks_429.pdf
That is the sound of Kable’s “winning”, I guess.
When the people lead, the leaders will follow.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) says the fact that terrorists (and I presume bad guys of all flavors) can buy guns easily at gun shows is just the price we have to pay for freedom.
" INGRAHAM: What do you say to Joe Scarborough, all these other people who say, under your theory Senator Inhofe, a terrorist — someone in the country who wants to be a terrorist — nothing is stopping him from going into a gun show and getting a gun from a none (sic) licensed dealer….
INHOFE: Well, the terrorist, they are a part of, not by definition part of a criminal, because they are terrorists, but I would say the same thing is true for terrorists that is for criminals. And that is, if someone in the United States of America or any other place too the criminal element or the terrorist element they will be able to get those. The problem I have is that any restrictions, such as the ones we voted against last week, would have the effect of reducing the number of firearms nationwide and would disproportionately reduce them for law abiding citizens, that’s what I would say to Joe Scarborough.Come the Revolution, he goes straight to The Wall. But him, we stab. Seems only fair.
We may have to. According to Inhofe, the government has bought up ALL the bullets.
Inhofe is one of my senators. Although I occasionally agree with his position on guns, I would gladly sacrifice him for someone with at least half a brain. I knew him when he was mayor of Tulsa, the man is just an amazing douchebag.
I don’t think that the government is buying up all the guns but WTF is up with the ammo shortage? I can’t figure it out. I mean, there has got to be a limit to how many rounds you need for the zombie apocalypse.
Really? You don’t see how the “OMG the gummint is coming fer our guns!” hysteria encouraged by the NRA might cause some of the more excitable gun owners to stock up on weapons and ammo?
I’m surprised that “excitable gun owners” wouldn’t self-ration out of a sense of community, to ensure there’s enough to go around. That “I got mine - FUCK everyone else!” attitude is something you rarely see from Armament-Americans.
You do realize that the most recent rash of “OMG the gummint is coming fer our guns!” hysteria was caused by Feinstein and company right?
But putting all that aside, you can now buy a S&W AR-15 for under $1000, the higher end AR-15s are at or close to their Newtown prices. But the only places with any ammo to sell seems to be gun ranges. The only range ammo I can get consistently is shot shell and even then 12 gauge is hard to come by. And frankly shotguns aren’t a lot of fun to shoot, all the accuracy of a handgun with all the noise and twice the kick of a rifle.
Er, no. It was caused by overreaction to Feinstein and company. And before that it was caused by Obama getting re-elected, and before that it was Obama getting elected for the first time. For people who talk a lot about how frightened the “gun grabbers” are, a lot of gun owners shriek like little girls at the slightest hint that some sort of gun control might happen, however trivial.
Well, I doubt it’s the government buying up the bullets anyway.
Gyrate specifically referenced hysteria encouraged by the NRA. You’re arguing that this is caused by Feinstein? Let’s take a look at a link that’s already been posted here.
April 2012 - The most dangerous election of our lifetime.
October 2012 - Defend your freedom with your check, and send the gun banners packing.
November 2012 - How and When Obama Will Come For Your Guns
February 2013 - This cover is so scary I don’t even know which scare words to quote here.
Feinstein introduced her bill on January 24th. If the NRA’s Freedom magazine is like most other periodicals, it probably left the printers in late December, so even that fear-fest predates Feinstein.
Ammo shortages pre-date Sandy Hook. Here’s a thread complaining about lack of .223 ammo from Nov 2nd.
Here’s a blog post from July complaining about the same thing.
This is an assault weapon ammo shortage before an assault weapon ban was introduced, before Obama was re-elected, before Sandy Hook set America on edge. However, one thing that HAD happened was the NRA amping up the fear.
eta: Here’s another forum bitchfest from November. Searching google for “ammo shortage” by date range reveals dozens of these. Seems like the election was when the shortage really ramped up and started to hit average consumers. Was that still Feinstein somehow?
Adding to what steronz said, the latest rash of paranoia from the NRA side was caused by the NRA. You and they would have us do nothing as kids were shot, or worse, remove our gun laws so that more kids would be shot. There are people who now are trying to find out what type of guns were used by the Tsarnaev brothers so they can go out and purchase it. Its a sickness, these people are mentally ill