Guns don't kill people ....

[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

[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.

[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.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by classicman

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

Oh, come on.