Guns don't kill people ....

[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

[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?

[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.

[Ibby]

Lamp: would tighter gun laws have prevented that? How MUCH tighter? Assuming that a British style no-guns proposal would be unconstitutional, and barring repealing the second amendment... What do you propose as a solution?

[Ibby]

To be honest, while most pro-gun arguments that assume "more people with guns means less crime!" don't quite check out 100% to me, mass shootings like this are one of the few cases where I definitely think that MORE gun ownership would limit the casualties in massacre situations.

[piercehawkeye45]

Gun crime is tied to gun culture, not number of guns. In some areas, more guns means more deaths. In some areas, more guns means less deaths.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Lamp: would tighter gun laws have prevented that? How MUCH tighter?
Assuming that a British style no-guns proposal would be unconstitutional, and barring repealing the second amendment...
What do you propose as a solution?

My short answer is: Yes, tighter gun laws could prevent that sort of massacre.
What do I propose as a solution ? That's a longer discussion.

I've invited the so-called pro-gun Dwellars to answer the same sort of question
and not surprisingly there's been no response.
They know this sort of thing is happening, but choose to do/say nothing about it.

That's not surprising because right now the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is to their favor.
The NRA is running with it, and lobbying feverishly to pass their manly "Stand Your Ground" laws.
Just the name of that law makes the weak feel strong.

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.

As policy, I have no problem with guns used for hunting, either for meat or trophy
--- so long as the hunt is "fair chase".
As policy, I have no problem with guns (or CCL's) issued when the individual's job or
career presents a need for one, i.e., as an agent in busines that needs protection.
(e.g., as an agent for a bank or $-guard, body guard, criminal attorney, etc.)

I do have a problem with every Joe Blow citizen, like my next door neighbor, having a gun
just because he lives in fear that someone somewhere might do something he doesn't like.

I put the blame where the fault lies... with the ATA and the NRA.
It is my belief about the way things are going due to the current interpretation
of the 2nd Amendment, that society will eventually recognize that the argument
about "self defense" is fallacious, and the fact that guns are doing unjustifiable harm to individuals and to society, itself.

When that happens, the judicial interpretation of the 2nd Amendment will change,
and guns be allowed in specific light of maintaining a well-regulated militia (e.g., National Guard)
only as necessary for the security of the free state, and not to feed the politics of the NRA.
.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

... I've invited the so-called pro-gun Dwellars to answer the same sort of question
and not surprisingly there's been no response.
They know this sort of thing is happening, but choose to do/say nothing about it.

Lamplighter, to me there are two glaring reasons why the matters you're presenting haven't gotten the response you'd like:

1. First and foremost, we're 270 posts into this thread and YOU DIDN'T BRING ANY SNACKS!

2. Similar issues have been raised and done to death here before, prior to you joining the community (e.g. Will the Second Amendment survive?, 12-02-2007 to 01-06-2008, 22 pages, 326 posts). Many of the previous participants are still here. Some have chimed in this time around for various reasons including probing just to see where the newer members stand on the issues. Many are not getting involved to the same degree as before, if at all, and why should they? They're under no obligation to rehash their perspectives just to appease more recent members. Unless you've read through all of the previous topically related posts in all of the previous topically related threads, I believe the part of your quote I've put in bold does the membership an injustice.

[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.

[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.