Gun Control III

Exactly, yet there is only one gun store in all of Mexico.

Insignificant to any issue in this thread. Mexico mean nothing unless you're really reaching into never-never land for some kind of pro-gun argument.

Sorry Percy but that is simply a stupid comment.What gun did Timothy McVeigh use?And it is also stupid unless you can offer some model, method, mechanism, process or procedure that might have actually kept them from having guns.There are some possibilities as I have mentioned several times in this thread but they are not easy, not cheap and not quick.A realistic Federal Red Flag law would have helped. In all of the cases there were indicators that the person was unstable and potentially dangerous but we have no mental health care system or universal reporting system or set processes, procedures, models, methods or mechanisms in place to create such systems and no public support to educate and fund the necessary staff to implement such systems.

As I have suggested before in this thread, the reason gun laws don't work is because many of the self-styled "responsible gun owners" are not obeying the laws. They are the ones who are putting the guns into the hands of the perpetrators. It doesn't matter how strict the laws are if "law-abiding" gun owners don't abide by them.

Edited by ringo, .

First, does the qute attribution need to get fixed?And second, yup. Lots of people do not obey even really simple laws like a loaded gun should be either on the owners person or securely locked away.

Maybe the desire to do violence.But the violence - or the degree of violence - is, in fact, caused by the guns. There's a reason why mass-killers choose guns to do their violence instead of teaspoons. Guns were invented for killing people. They're very efficient at it. If you want to kill a lot of people in a hurry, guns are your best choice. Try killing twenty people with a teaspoon.

There is a process, procedure, model, method and mechanism to amend the US Constitution and it's been suggest that would be a potential solution.But again, reality intrudes.Twenty-seven Amendments have been ratified to the US Constitution but remember ten of that 27 number were the original Ten Amendments.Six more amendments have not yet been ratified including what should be simple and universally accepted such as an Equal Right Amendment.There are also 22 Proposed Amendments that have not even been approved by Congress.

Come on Ringo. Are you sure you can't come up with a method of killing other than the choice of guns or a teaspoon?And again, reality.There are over 400 MILLION guns already in the US.

I don't think any effective law is possible in the current environment. We have to change the nature of the debate so that people understand that firearms are dangerous and that possession of a firearm increases your risk of firearm injury or death.People imagine a burglar breaking in and they grabbing their gun from the nightstand and shooting the burglar before he shoots them. They should instead imagine missing the burglar and the bullet then going through the wall and into their children's room. Or through their apartment or house wall and into their neighbor's apartment or the house next door. This isn't imaginary. It happens all the time:

• Perkins fire chief accidently fires bullet through neighbor’s house
• A bullet grazed a six-year-old Kearns girl’s foot as she slept in her bed early Friday morning
• 'These things can't happen' | Pineville mom wakes up to bullet hole in wall just a foot above baby's crib
• Robbery suspect shot at victim, bullet went into house next door
• 7-Year-Old Utah Girl Is Killed in Home After Man Allegedly Drunkenly Fires Bullet Through Wall 
• LA police kill teenage girl while firing on a male suspect in clothing store shooting

Also, a nightstand is one of the worst places to keep a firearm. If the concern is protection against burglars at night then the nightstand is the best place for your firearm, but it's one of the least safe.In none of these imagined scenarios does the person see themselves grabbing the key to the gun locker, running to the gun locker, unlocking it, opening it, pulling out the unloaded weapon, finding the ammunition clip (which should not be stored in the gun locker with the guns - the NRA recommends a separate ammunition safe), slipping the clip into the gun, and then shooting the burglar before he shoots them.If this sounds ridiculous it's because it is. The way you have to keep a gun in the home for effective protection (nearby and loaded) runs counter to all gun safety rules.But what I've described above is not the way most people think. They think, "If I have a gun I'll be safe." We have to change that thinking.--Percy

Agreed.But it's not just gun owners that need to change their thinking.And that takes time and effort.Again, the private individual that has invested the time and money and resources to get a carry license is demonstrably among the most law abiding people in the US, more law abiding than the police or politicians as a population. But they invested in educating themselves about the dangers involved in firearms.My guns other than the one I am carrying at the time stay locked away and ammo is stored separately. My home security is designed to make needing to use a gun as unlikely as possible. And today, that level of security can be less expensive than buying a firearm.But how to change the general public mindset?There's no doubt that the NRA for the last half century has been part of the problem rather than a potential solution. But there are other organizations struggling to change the mindset. The Liberal Gun Owners is one and another is NAAGA (National African American Gun association.Unfortunately both organizations are in the minority and so their voices are simply not a prominent as the NRA.

I use that example to illustrate the fact that it IS the weapon that determines the degree of violence, NOT the state of mind of the perpetrator. No matter how insanely violent people are, they can not ACT on their violent urges without the weapon. Oh, I have no illusions about the reality. Nothing is going to be done.As I have said before, when the last American shoots the second-last American, we invade.

I still hope that things can be done but realistically it ain't likely.

If the honest citizen thinks that there's a possibility of being attacked by a criminal/loony with a gun and he's legally able to have a gun himself, it seems rational to get a gun. (Even though it isn't.)It's incredibly unlikely that a honest citizen will be attacked by a guy with a gun in the UK because they're illegal and the illegal guns aren't easily available. You go to jail for a minimum of 5 years for just having one. Commit a crime with a gun, even if you don't use it, and you go to jail for a much longer term.Get rid of the guns and killing people with guns goes away.(Yes, there are exceptions.)

I fixed it for you.People without guns can't commit the extreme violence you're talking about. If gun nuts did not have the incredibly numerous examples of gun violence to justify calling this a violent country, they wouldn't be able to claim they need guns for self-defense. Red flag laws are just excuses for not doing anything effective about gun violence.But if I were to imagine a truly effective red flag law it would include funding for annual psych evaluations of all gun owners, which to implement would in turn require universal gun registration. Random spot checks would have to be part of it. Safe gun and ammunition storage would be a requirement. Violations of any sort would cause guns to be confiscated for some time period. Maybe the program could be run by the ATF.But the real problem is how to detect the quiet guy who's posting anonymously on the Internet and gathering information and making plans. This describes a great many mass shooters.Also, monitoring people on the Internet is problematic. Literally millions of people sound off on the Internet, where personal privacy is considered paramount and any efforts by the government to monitor Internet communications, even to enforce red flag laws, would be strongly and widely opposed.The reason we almost always miss the warning signs for suicides and mass shootings is because there usually aren't any. Lots of people who are sad or distressed don't commit suicide. And lot's of people who are exceptionally quiet or are very angry or are just plain weird don't commit mass shootings.And that's why red flag laws are a chimera.--Percy

As I have said, there is currently no reasonable expectation that a Red Flag law could be effective BUT you are wrong that most mass murderers do not show signs beforehand. Unfortunately those signs are most often pointed out after the fact.But the reality is that there is no support in the US for true Universal Background Checks, general licensing of firearm owners, even really basic things like requiring all firearms to have some form of a safety.You mentioned the two year old that may have shot a father (it's also possible it was the five year old and 'Billy Did It') and one factor is that the gun is one that a two year old can fire. Some of the more popular handguns today are 'Glocks', polymer framed relatively light weight guns with no safeties. There is no way to safe a loaded Glock.So in that and far too many other instances the problem is that a whole host of rules and safety measures were ignored.By the way, Glock is not alone when it comes to safeties. Smith & Wesson handguns can be ordered with or without a manual safety.As long as there is no desire on the part of gun owners to make them as safe as possible there will continue to be such tragedies.We have the nation we desire.