It seems to me that there is only one thing that would stop these shootings. requiring every adult in the united states who is not a felon or insane to carry a firearm with them at all times in all places and know how to use it. This should be considered a civil duty akin to jury duty. How many would have died in CO with this policy? how many crimes would be stoped before they happened? As the saying goes when seconds count the police are minutes away.
Please define exactly what you mean by “…and know how to use it.”
Is that an official stance of the NRA, because it sure sounds like it.
It’s a perfectly ridiculous solution that only would make sense to Americans. We have more shooting deaths than any other country. Solution put more guns on the street! That will stop it!
With people shooting at each other in a dark, loud movie theater where the visibility was poor because of tear gas? It could have been less than 12 or significantly more than 12. I don’t think you’ve thought this through very well. The ‘jury duty’ thing is another hint: people don’t take jury duty seriously and they do whatever they can to get out of it. You can’t wish the entire country into competent use of firearms, and in a crisis, general training is not going to help most people. People with real interest in firearm use and safety might respond well in a crisis, but those are the kinds of people who are either going to have guns and training, or they’ll already be in the military or the police force. That aside, you can’t force people to carry guns with them everyplace. Legal issues aside, people will end up leaving them home a lot - and the places they won’t take their guns are the same types of places a lunatic like this guy might think to shoot up.
It might as well be, because as a lobby the NRA has been captured by firearms-industry leaders simply interested in selling as many guns as possible. Stoking their membership’s paranoia of a government intent on taking their guns away is just a tactic to support this overall strategy.
Really, the disconnect between rank-and-file NRA members and the leadership’s legislative priorities couldn’t be more stark. A 2009 survey of NRA members–conducted by Fox News commentator Frank Luntz–found some surprising results:
[ul]
[li]65% of NRA members support closing the Gun Show Loophole, where 30+ states classify gun-show sales as “private sales” and hence don’t require a background check.[/li][li]69% of NRA members oppose the Tiahrt Amendment, provisions attached to federal spending bills that interfere with the ability of police agencies to use federal gun-trace data.[/li][li]78% of NRA members support laws requiring gun owners to alert police if their guns are lost or stolen. You may be surprised to learn that the NRA leadership opposes this–for example, by pursuing lawsuits and legislation in Pennsylvania that allows the NRA to sue local municipalities over such gun ordinances.[/li][/ul]
The list goes on, but it’s enough to make the point that the NRA is far more interested in the money of gun manufacturers than its own membership. Much less trivialities like public safety.
Who made that strategy possible in the first place?
It’s not a loophole. In most states it is legal for citizens to sell their firearms if they so desire. I could place an ad in my local newspaper in order to sell my hunting rifle if I wanted. So what exactly is the gun show loophole?
If the leadership is divorced from the general membership of the NRA then why do those members stay?
I assume we’re supposed to say the government here.
You appear to be arguing that there’s no loophole and that the loophole isn’t a problem. I guess you don’t like the term, but it was clear what CJJ* was talking about. The cite explained it in full.
Nah, I like the government. I’m thinking that organizations like HCI and Mayors Against Guns have done a lot to shape the NRA into what it is today.
I know what he’s talking about but I’m not clear about what makes it a loophole. Private sales of firearms are legal in most states. If someone sells a firearm at a gun show what loophole is being exploited? Maybe the NRA is coming down against this “loophole” for fear that it will lead to a general ban on private sales of firearms.
By “automatic pistols” I presume you mean autoloader or not-a-revolver. They’ve been around since the end of the 19th century; somehow people accepted them for over eighty years without screaming for them to be banned. As for “dangerous”- well what the heck is a gun supposed to be?
As opposed to killings where someone with an old-fashioned revolver or two shoots a dozen people? Or maybe just goes amok with a machete?
By the latest available statistics, the firearms ownership rate in Somalia is about 9%; that is, the total number of guns in the country is estimated to be equal to 9% of the population, and almost certainly most of those are held by armies and guerillas. The average Somalian is an unarmed helpless victim, cowering as brigands rape and loot the population.
Has it ever really been tried? Even today only a small percentage of citizens routinely carry- carry permit rates hover at around 2% in my state and presumably not everyone who has a permit does carry. Some things only work if you go to one extreme or the other- a compromise or middle ground is worse than either extreme. Either you need for nobody to carry guns or for almost everyone to. The worst of both worlds is when a only a few people carry guns- the criminals and psychotics who intend to use them- and most people do not.
I would volunteer to live in a county in the USA where there was no government police protection, simply to participate in the experiment.
I have to assume your post is designed to provoke a reaction or you’re into really earnest-sounding sarcasm. It certainly can’t be taken seriously. Do you really think that engaging in a public gun battle qualifies as “stopping a crime before it happens?”. I suppose you think calling the fire department prevents the fire from starting in the first place, do you?
To clarify this: every state I’m aware of makes it a crime to sell a gun to anyone who is legally forbidden to possess one- convicted felons, etc. But only federally-licensed firearms dealers are required by law to do a prior background check before concluding the sale. To eliminate the “Gun Show Loophole” would mean banning the direct transfer of firearms. All this would do is drive unregulated sales underground. So then you’d need national registration of all firearms where every person would have to account for the whereabouts of their weapons. Doubtless there would be a lot of boating accidents.
Again, it’s security theater. The laws would be futile against people determined to break them anyway and punitive to the law abiding.
The NRA leadership is in favor of this “loophole”, not against it. And again, they are opposed to a majority of their membership in this stance.
It is a loophole because it’s reasonable to assume gun show operators and promoters are engaged in the business of dealing firearms (one could argue it’s the primary reason they put on the show), and this is exactly what FOPA was intended to regulate. That’s what a “loophole” is: A legal means to evade the spirit of a law.
And to make my own position clear, I’m a believer in the 2nd amendment who owns several rifles of my own. But I would never join the NRA for the simple reason that I don’t agree with their legislative agenda; I am all for common sense gun regulation because I think it would be effective in averting some of these gun tragedies and wouldn’t affect legal gun owners one whit.
So what? What do you suggest? That all states have to conform to a single, standard federal gun regulation? Ok, fine by me (does this apply to all issues or just this one?). I think you’ll get more howls of anguish from the gun control crowd than from the pro-gun folks, depending on what, realistically, you think you are going to get regulated at the federal level. Wonder what DC or other places with nearly absolute bans will think of a single, mandated gun control policy…
Seems it’s YOUR facts that are a bit, um, skewed. Automatic pistols are already heavily regulated…ordinary citizens can not legally acquire them except in very limited circumstances. I think what you mean is a clip fed semi-automatic. ‘Automatic’ means you pull the trigger and bullets come out in rapid succession until you release the trigger or until the clip runs dry. Assault-style weapons are also highly regulated and not generally available to the public…legally at any rate. Again, what you MEANT was ‘scary looking guns that are still semi-automatic, clip fed and fire standard ammo of most rifles…but really, really LOOK scary. And stuff’. Your attempt to spin is noted with irony, however.
I believe the answer is to limit the general public to less straw and hyperbole when posting about gun control.
Ok, please name a common sense regulation that would have prevented the Wisconsin or Colorado shootings. To the best of my knowledge, neither better mental health screening or gun show sales would have made a difference.
Fewer guns & tighter regulations = less gun deaths.
I know. What a shock! Really, who would have thunk of any kind of correlation…it’d take some sort of Einstein to figure that out. :smack:
Not sure what “facts” you claim I am skewing. An automatic pistol can refer to fully or semi-automatic. I think your obsession with semantics confirms you haven’t got a substantive answer, and I note you dodged the question by simply condemning my entire comment as “hyperbole”. Now there’s some irony.
I’d be curious to know what municipality you think has police protection now.
You can be a member of Congress with an officer standing right next to you and not have any protection. The idea that there is someone protecting the average citizen is an allusion.
Why take out suicides and accidents?
This idea is just so stupid it might just work! We need to try this to resolve other issues. We are concerned about Iran developing nuclear weapons. The obvious solution is to require everyone have nuclear weapons! Meth use is a problem you say, well how about we give everyone meth then it will never be a problem!!
The idea that more people with more guns will lead to less gun violence is just as ridiculous as it sounds.
Do you know what an “assault-style weapon” is? It’s a semi-automatic that looks scary. Anyone who thinks that restricting a person’s ability to use a bayonet or a pistol grip is an effective way of combating gun violence is an idiot.