Sure. I’m sure you meant something other than we would have less shootings if we had less guns.
I feel like nobody ever really talks about the fact that these constant shootings that we have in America today just weren’t happening with anywhere near the same frequency in previous decades. There weren’t constant mass shootings in the 70s and 80s, were there? School shootings started to become common in the mid-90s, and then ever since the mid-2000s it feels like there’s been constant school shootings and workplace shootings. Granted, I was not around in the 70s to keep up on the news, I was born in 1986 so again I wasn’t personally keeping up on events, but I can remember what a huge deal Columbine was and then how it gradually became more frequent after that.
It seems to me that something in society must have changed to create a catalyst for these shootings, other than simply the availability of guns, because guns were widely available in the previous decades also. I guess I have 2 questions then: 1. what was it, and 2. is there some way of fixing it?
So, if you take your gun off of your property, you have to have insurance on it?
If you lend your gun to someone, your insurance is still liable for any damages?
You need to register it, as well as any transfers of ownership?
New guns need to be made with safety features?
Operating a gun under the influence will be against the law, potentially revoking your right to operate one?
By public usage, do you mean actual use in public, or anytime it is not on private property?
Probably becuase they didn’t think it would do any good.
Law enforcement actually enforcing red flag laws. Which means not only that they have the will to do so, but also the ability, which would require knowing what guns someone has access to.
Getting them out of the hands of people who aren’t supposed to have them would make a pretty big dent. This can be done by implementing procedures to prevent and punish those who sell or give their guns to those who are not supposed to have them, as well as securing them against theft.
The only reason that I consider getting a gun is because criminals out there have guns. I can probably take someone in a fight, or at least hold my own, and my dogs can be intimidating. But against a gun, I’m pretty helpless without one of my own.
If criminals don’t have guns, then fewer law abiding people feel the need to have guns, which will cut down on accidents and theft.
Part of it is that it used to be that if someone saw you carrying a gun in public, they would call the police, and the police would ask why you are carrying a gun in public.
Now you are told to mind your own business.
Guns are easier to get, they are more affordable, and they are easier to carry without question.
I don’t doubt that this situation has led to more people openly carrying guns - look at the various protests we’ve witnessed over the past few years with AR-15s, something that I have to imagine would have been unthinkable before - but how much of a correlation is there actually between this and the issue of the shootings? I’m pretty sure most of these shootings don’t start out with someone who “seems” to be legally open-carrying a weapon at first and then suddenly starts shooting, I think they typically involve someone just charging in with the weapon before anyone has a chance to wonder whether they’re “only” open-carrying it or whether they should call the police.
I think there should be a legal way to transfer a gun between private properties without requiring the hassels of use in public. Probably something like unloaded, and cased, possibly with some kind of lock. Just like I can take my non road legal car and trailer it to the drag strip without being in violation of the law.
My insurance requires me to list the drivers on my vehicle which is only my wife and myself.
There is no requirements for me to register my vehicles or when I transfer ownership of them. They only have to be registered by the new owner if they want to drive on public roads. I currently own two non registered vehicles one of which wasn’t registered by the previous owner so assigned from a signed title I haven’t done anything with it and I’m not in any violation.
Sure, guns should be made safe as long as they are still functional. Obviously, we could have a whole debate on this point.
Drunk driving isn’t illegal on private property. I personally have driven beligerantly drunk on many golf courses. But ya I’m comfortable with people who are carrying weapons in public shouldn’t be drinking. I don’t drink and shoot but I wouldn’t want to see a law prohibiting it in private.
I would classify use anytime a gun is capable of being fired. So carried either concealed or open or drawn and of course being fired. But as I said transported in a manner that renders it incapable of being fired would not be use.
Possibly or as a minority they were afraid of interacting with the cops. Understanding though will enable the law to be more effective. Having people’s friends and family stepping in when they start to act weird (ranting about the government or their ex, or whatever causes them to worry) and then going through a legal process to make sure it’s just just a weird vengeance thing. Should be useful.
I don’t agree that law enforcement needs to know prior to the red flag order being granted by the court but once it is granted then the police should be able to search for any weapons in any place the person might be able to have them (home, vehicles, place of business, etc)
I think this would work. It would be more effective with a national registry and I don’t think that’s viable. But it should be easier to punish people who act as straw buyers or sell to people who shouldn’t have access. Mandatory reporting of lost or stolen weapons makes sense as well. I think the implementation is the challenging part but it’s a viable idea.
Ehh, even with a gun you’re helpless against two people with guns. People should be able to protect their homes, themselves and their property. My uncle wanted to arm himself against 5 man fire teams in body armor invading his home, I think thats crazy but you should be allowed to do it. Once we’re talking about going around in public I have more of an issue with the walking armory.
Looking at the article in the OP, where it lists 11 mass shootings from last weekend, there are some that I have reason to believe that they probably transported their guns openly and with little fear of question to the place of the shooting, but the articles don’t quite into quite enough detail to cite.
However, I also see several incidents where shooting took place in a public place after a fight or argument started. Not all mass shootings are premeditated, some are an escalation of violence. If they had not been carrying a gun in public, the shooting would not have taken place.
A couple quotes
Not a great sample, but 2 out of 11, 2 that happened in the same day, would not have happened if people were more restricted in carrying guns in public.
Agreed. But in the glovebox or under the seat would fall a bit short of an acceptable standard, I’d hope.
If you piss off your insurance company by violating their terms, they may sue you, but if you give permission to someone to use your car, and they cause monetary damage, your insurance will be on the hook.
So, I suppose that, just like your car, you should inform your gun insurance agent if you are planning on lending it to someone.
I guess a couple of things. This only would apply as long as you never have your gun in any public setting, other than securely transporting it, just as the cars of your unregistered cars can never touch the road.
Also, I don’t think that you can ever be prohibited from having a car. I do think that there are some people who should be prohibited from having a gun. So, unlike cars, there does need to be some method of ensuring that you are not selling your gun to someone who is not allowed to have one.
Bags and bags of money are spent on cars to improve their safety and security. Are we willing to make the same investment in guns?
That varies between states, and from the cite:
You probably were breaking the law with your golf cart antics.
Would you support a law imposing criminal penalties for any gun accidents that happen under the influence?
Just because its private property doesn’t mean that no one can get hurt.
Speaking of private property. I assume its not just your guns that need to stay there, but your bullets too? Would you support stiff penalties if someone is shooting in such a way that their shots leave their property?
Depends on the situation, of course, but without a gun, I’m helpless against anyone with a gun.
I’d agree that loaded in the glove box wouldn’t be an acceptable non-use. I’d probably use the California standards for when transportation counts as concealed carry. Basically, in a case or holster, unloaded with ammo stored separately. It can be annoying at times but certainly is a workable standard.
Sure but just because I have a car on the road doesn’t mean all my vehicles are registered either. The one interesting thing here is that most hunting weapons would end up registered in Colorado while almost none would in Texas
Ya, this is a place where the comparison breaks down to cars but then I’d be ok we some people not being allowed to own cars either. Honestly, I’d probably change the laws to allow more ownership while strengthening Red Flag laws and then if you lose your weapons 3 times through red flag laws then you lose your rights for 10 years or something. I’m not convinced that because someone was violent in their 20s they should be prohibited from having guns 30 years or 50 years later.
Sure, the prime safety problems with guns is they go bang when people pull the trigger. That safety problem is unsolvable. I’d before more training and improving methods for keeping guns away from not-their-owner but the vast majority of gun injuries/deaths are inflicted by the person who is supposed to be pulling the trigger.
And yet every golf course I’ve been to serves alcohol on the course with the expectation of you drinking and driving. Without something more than two states mentioned I’m not convinced that it is actually true in Colorado, New Mexico, California, or Texas.
Depends on what we’re talking about here but I’d generally be fine with imposing criminal penalties for most gun accidents whether or not alcohol was involved. But specifically getting drunk and shooting your buddy in the leg should be assault or assault with a deadly weapon. Of course, if your buddy doesn’t want to cooperate with the police they’ll have a hell of a time proving what happened.
Absolutely. The other side of that is I’d want people to be able to own anything on their property, fully auto weapons, grenade launchers, silencers, basically a repeal of the National Firearms Act of 1934.
NM already covered
I think equating the public vs private property usage of guns vs cars is pushing the analogy a bit far. The number of cars that people don’t intend to take off private property is a miniscule proportion of cars, and the vast majority of deaths due to cars are due to their use off of personal private property. Meanwhile a substantial proportion (possibly a majority, I can’t find good stats) of gun deaths happen in the home of the owners.
That’s probably a fair guess since 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides. I don’t think we should be regulating gun use to prevent suicides though.
I can understand how almost everybody thinks they are responsible enough to own a gun. I can’t understand the people who think everyone else is responsible enough to own a gun. And then not simply think that, but in addition do everything they can to guarantee that absolutely anyone can get a gun if they want one.
Obviously when people say that guns should be treated like cars they are referring to licensing and registration.
But what’s interesting, is that even these examples you’ve picked as an argumentum ad absurdum would actually increase safety too, without being too onerous. So sure, I’ll bite.
For example, insurance might make sense, as when some idiot with a gun deliberately or by accident hurts someone, then we know that person’s health care will be paid. The insurance would of course be per gun owner, not per gun, and would likely cost a small fraction of the price of car insurance (because cars are expensive and car insurance needs to pay out for many events where no-one is hurt but one or more vehicles are damaged or stolen). So, why not?
As well as testing, monitoring, and the ability to take them away for irresponsible use.
I’m not entirely sure what you mean here. I am coming from the standpoint of wanting to lower the number of injuries and deaths associated with guns. I see these as useful steps that should not be considered to be too onerous to gun owners that also would like to see fewer injuries and deaths associated with guns.
I also like the insurance angle, as then the insurance companies can help to incentivize safe practices, as they do with drivers. The law can only be pretty binary, let you have a gun or take it away. Insurance can let you have your gun, but bump up your premiums if it is determined that you are not operating it safely.
Ah I see. Guess I misinterpreted your post; I thought you were throwing out these questions for rhetorical purposes, but as serious suggestions, yes I agree that most if not all are probably workable and indeed beneficial.
Because I think that every person who committed suicide with their gun was responsible enough to own a gun. That leaves 15,000 deaths and another 28,000 injuries. Out of 72mm gun owners roughly 0.06% are irresponsible enough to make the statistics each year and probably 20x that are irresponsible enought that they would make the statistics in the next 20 years. Possibly less than that since some % will be new gun owners who make a mistake and decide to leave guns alone and that number should be reduced for illegally owned guns which will be responsible for a decent percentage of the deaths and injuries. We’re looking at 99+% of legal gun owners who are responsible how could you see that group and think they weren’t responsible enough to own a gun.
It’s very easy when there are 10 mass shootings in this country each week. One happened yesterday in Providence only about 10 miles away from my home.
That’s an incredibly broad brush you’ve got there.
Yeah right, my brush shot all those people, not some asshole’s gun 
Not one of those mass shooters was responsible enough to own a gun. You think they were.