Guns don't kill people ....

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by classicman

About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States
GO, go, go UAW!

But can you drive your Glock to work?

[lookout123]

Personally, and contrary to what Lookout123 has assumed, I have no problem with guns, per se,
I have owned them since high school, and still have one.

So you don't have a problem with guns. So long as it's the right kind, bought in the right place, and for the right purpose. Is that about right? Wait, who's definition of right are we going to use?

I've invited the so-called pro-gun Dwellars to answer the same sort of question
and not surprisingly there's been no response.

What's to answer? You see a massive problem, I don't. Tighter gun restrictions do nothing but make it harder for law abiding citizens, who have the right to own firearms to do so. You may have noticed that most crimes are committed by criminals. You know, those guys who don't really give a damn about the law anyway?

[wolf]

Universities are legislated gun-free zones. Mass shootings occur in schools and colleges mainly because there is little to no likelihood that anyone will be anything other than a victim.

There have been school/college shootings minimized by bystanders who went to their cars and came back with their legally owned weapons.

I recently attended a lecture in which an interesting fact was revealed ... there have been no school shootings in schools with an armed, uniformed, police officer on the premises. Is this true? I have not exhaustively researched this claim, so I don't actually know. The presenter, he researched it, so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. If I find anything to back up that claim, I'll let you know.

[ZenGum]

ETA: Was replying to Lookout.

Ahh, if guns are illegal only criminals will have guns.

And police, security guards, and everyone else with a legitimate reason to have one.

It is very easy to slip from "only criminals" will have guns to "all criminals will have guns", but that doesn't follow.

In low-gun cultures like Australia, only the most serious, well connected criminals have guns. The majority of criminals can't get much more than a big stick, or a knife; and any crook with a gun can be arrested for it and have the weapon seized.

Of course, this couldn't work in the US because of the large amount of guns already in circulation.

We choose to have fewer guns, and pay the price of occasionally having the situation where a crazy dude goes on a rampage (sometimes with, often without, a gun) and no-one has a gun to stop him 'til the cops get there.

You choose to have more guns, and pay the price of having more accidental discharges, suicides, and petty criminals with guns; but when some #$%&-up goes on a rampage in, say, a subway outlet, there is a pretty good chance that someone with a CCL will be there to deal with it.

Personally, I prefer fewer guns, but I don't think the difference in outcomes is so big to make the decision obvious.

[Ibby]

Culture, culture, culture.
Switzerland's gun ownership laws work pretty well for switzerland.
Australia's and the UK's gun ownership laws work pretty well for Australia and the UK.
America's works okay for America, but better in some places than others. Vermont has a good record with gun laws and outcomes. Large, poor cities have bad records with gun ownership, and fewer handguns overall works better than freer gun ownership there. Places like the south, they're more likely to be used in race-based encounters, but only because racial violence is more common in the south - and as the case of the boys in mississippi i think it was who pled guilty a few weeks ago, they used their car, not a gun. Gun ownership works okay in a lot of the south.
Where do you live, Lamp, and do you think the gun laws where you are work? Do they lead to too many "joe blow"s getting guns? Why should you be allowed to own the gun you own, but not your next-door neighbor? How should you have to prove that/how would you change the licensing system to fix that? Would that include long guns, or only handguns?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

But can you drive your Glock to work?

If one has a job... no.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

But can you drive your Glock to work?

If one has a job... no. Thanks for rubbing it in though.

[Lamplighter]

@Ib

Where do you live, Lamp, and do you think the gun laws where you are work?
Do they lead to too many "joe blow"s getting guns?

Oregon guns laws and the people that have them are, more than likely,
just like the other states and other people who have or who avoid guns.
The NRA has been lobbying here too, and we do have a version of "Stand Your Ground".

Yes, too many "Joe Blows" end up with guns.
We have just as many abusive men intimidating women,
just as many accidental or unintentional shootings,
and just as few home-invasions prevented by a homeowner's gun.

Oregon and Washington may be different in one respect.
We have had fishermen on the banks of rivers and streams who fired a gun
towards boaters passing thru "their water".
(P.S. I don't have a boat so don't anyone try to hang that one on me)
We also have hunters do stupid things, such as "warning shots",
unintentional shootings, and accidents where someone has been shot or killed.

Why should you be allowed to own the gun you own, but not your next-door neighbor?

After submitting my post, I realized someone might put those two
sentences together, but it was too late to edit my post.
That was NOT intended.
With respect to me and my next-door neighbor, I am no different.
I have, but don't need, a gun... I'll give it anytime... that would not be an issue.

How should you have to prove that/how would you change the licensing system to fix that?
Would that include long guns, or only handguns?

I'm not trying to get out of answering such questions.
But it's not up to me to prove my points by coming up with the "perfect solution".
I'll participate in such a discussion, but the "pro-gun" people need to think about the issues too.

Let me give just one example of gun-control which might save some misery and/or lives in a family household.
What if... ?
- A person could not legally purchase/obtain/possess a gun,
unless everyone in that household (continuously) agreed to it

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by classicman

If one has a job... no. Thanks for rubbing it in though.

Oh, come on.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Let me give just one example of gun-control which might save some misery and/or lives in a family household.
What if... ?
- A person could not legally purchase/obtain/possess a gun,
unless everyone in that household (continuously) agreed to it

That sounds eminently reasonable, except that it would be hard to deal with legally. That is to say, if I own my house, and happen to be letting you and your kids live in it also, and then you tell me to get rid of my gun cause you voted... you have no legal standing to demand that.

Who should be allowed to own guns? As few people as possible seems to be your answer. How do you respond to right-wing claims that gun ownership is the surest protection against tyranny? How would you ensure that the process to license a gun owner checks that they "require" the firearm? again, is this just for handguns, or long guns also? What about hunting? What about sport shooting, skeet shooting, target shooting? What should be done with guns already owned by people who would come off your list, and already in circulation on the black market or in gray, pseudo-regulated "gun shows" and other less-regulated markets?

[Lamplighter]

As I said:

Short answer: If a law says that everyone living in the household must agree to the presence of guns, that gives them the legal standing.

I'm not trying to get out of answering such questions.
But it's not up to me to prove my points by coming up with the "perfect solution".
I'll participate in such a discussion, but the "pro-gun" people need to think about the issues too.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

ETA: Was replying to Lookout.

Ahh, if guns are illegal only criminals will have guns.

And police, security guards, and everyone else with a legitimate reason to have one.

It is very easy to slip from "only criminals" will have guns to "all criminals will have guns", but that doesn't follow.

Legitimate is the sticky part isn't it?

I didn't mean to say all criminals will have guns. In fact probably fewer criminals would have guns because they would be more scarce. The some criminals having them and zero law abiding citizens having them part is a given under your scenario though. Remember, the courts have already ruled that the police have no obligation to prevent crime, only investigate it after it has occured.

On the flip side of all that is a law restricting guns to law enforcement and military (even if it were constitutional) would have the effect of making people who are law abiding citizens into criminals because I can guarantee a large section of the populace will not turn them in peacefully.

[Lamplighter]

Again, slowly it turns...

The Associated Press
WASHINGTON
April 5, 2012, 03:33 pm ET

Coca-Cola Ends Ties To Conservative Law Writers

Coca-Cola Co. has terminated its relationship with a conservative group
seen by some as an incubator for a string of new state voter ID laws and
a marketer of laws like Florida's "Stand Your Ground" self-defense statute.
<snip>
ALEC brings together state and federal lawmakers, who pay $100 for a two-year membership,
and corporations, which pay between $2,500 and $25,000 for an annual membership.
The legislators and corporate representatives draft templates of legislation
that can be used by lawmakers and lobbyists as models for state or federal legislation.
<snip>
Koch Industries, whose top executives Charles and David Koch are prominent supporters
of conservative causes, is one of the largest corporations supporting Washington-based ALEC.
<snip>
Several states have passed laws requiring voters to show specific ID,
toughening voter registration or reducing early voting days.
The voting laws have been seen by civil rights and other groups, as well as many Democrats,
as an attempt to suppress the votes of African Americans, Latinos, the elderly and students.

Huffington Post
Dan Foomkin
4/5/12
American Legislative Exchange Council, Ultra-Conservative Lobby, Loses 2 Major Funders

WASHINGTON -- Succumbing to pressure from public interest groups,
Coca Cola and Pepsico have severed their ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC),
an ultra-conservative lobby group that has pushed so-called Stand Your Ground gun legislation
and voter-identification bills through state legislatures across the country.
<snip>

[classicman]

A person could not legally purchase/obtain/possess a gun,
unless everyone in that household (continuously) agreed to it

That is a logistical impossibility.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

I'll participate in such a discussion, but the "pro-gun" people need to think about the issues too.

When you've done some thinking about how to make a genocide not merely impracticable, but well-nigh unthinkable, post what it is you've found. A hint: Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

I think you will find their argument about why you need an assault rifle and at least 200 rounds of ready ammo unanswerable.

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Let me give just one example of gun-control which might save some misery and/or lives in a family household.
What if... ?
- A person could not legally purchase/obtain/possess a gun,
unless everyone in that household (continuously) agreed to it

You'd get extra people killed with that one. Yet somehow, the hoplophobe hasn't any philosophical problem with becoming an accessory before the fact. This is unconscionable, and hence must never be allowed. Heavens Tibet, Lampie: your right of self defense should be subject to blackballing? What madness is that? Is it even defensible?

You see, the gun people are on the side of the angels -- while the antigun are on the side of the State.