Can we have a rational discussion about guns and why the typical arguments for gun control and its implementation won't work?

[MaxInValrico]

Until gun owners are held fully and completely liable for their weapons, this will be a continuous issue. Things may change someday, but the gun nut lobby is a powerful force. The lie of the NRA continues to blow me away. Anyone that thinks the NRA is about gun safety, needs to only look at all the bills the NRA has proposed to the government that are about gun safety vs. their legal stance on arming as many people as possible and protecting that right first and foremost.

Do the parents of that six year old need to be locked up? Yep! Locked up and charged with attempted murder. Not only are they responsible for their child, they are JUST as responsible for their gun.

The number of guns that end up in the hands of criminals with little or no recourse and penalty for the supplier of that gun is ridiculous.

There are some solutions that are available, and some which could work very well. Smart guns are certainly one of those things that could provide some excellent and practical safety options. Yet, major manufacturers don't pursue them and people actively BOYCOT and PROTEST against smart weapons in this nation.

Imagine if the parents of that 6 year old had a gun that had been setup to only be able to be fired by the parents? Kid shows up to school, pulls out the gun.... "click" ... Nothing happens. Imagine this on a national level where a criminal breaks into your home, steals your gun, then points it at you and "click"... nothing happens. It's not for every person or situation, but it is one of those things that would help.

Still, until all gun owners are 100% liable for maintaining their guns and are held accountable, this nation will continue to have a gun issue. From people buying for others, to casual buyers who never once practice their use, to the lazy who just leave them sitting around for kids to find.

There are some, and I would daresay that most are responsible gun owners. But, this nation has failed to protect its citizens from the guns we have. While we improve cars and work to make them safer, guns continue to just shoot upward in the number of deaths caused annually. I'm not against the second amendment, but I'm not sure we can ever enact any useful gun legislation without some sort of modification to it.

Congress has all the authority needed to deal with guns under Article I.

 

[BMXTRIX]

Congress has all the authority needed to deal with guns under Article I.

This certainly is without question. They have the ability to change the Constitution as well. But, since they must act within the rules of the Constitution, and the Second Amendment is part of the Constitution, then they are somewhat limited in what they can do at this time.

What bugs me to no end is that the NRA should be leading the way in proposing and putting forth gun safety. That they should be reaching out across both aisles of government to put together safety packages and ideas that are practical and make a ton of sense. They should be going out if their way to promote 'smart' weapons that can't be picked up by a child, or a depressed teenager.

IMO, smart guns are one of the safest things that could ever exist in a typical home for typical users and should carry a lot of weight of law behind them to promote them.

 

[highfigh]

This is ridiculous. What kind of parents are out there??????????????????????

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[highfigh]

Until gun owners are held fully and completely liable for their weapons, this will be a continuous issue. Things may change someday, but the gun nut lobby is a powerful force. The lie of the NRA continues to blow me away. Anyone that thinks the NRA is about gun safety, needs to only look at all the bills the NRA has proposed to the government that are about gun safety vs. their legal stance on arming as many people as possible and protecting that right first and foremost.

Do the parents of that six year old need to be locked up? Yep! Locked up and charged with attempted murder. Not only are they responsible for their child, they are JUST as responsible for their gun.

The number of guns that end up in the hands of criminals with little or no recourse and penalty for the supplier of that gun is ridiculous.

There are some solutions that are available, and some which could work very well. Smart guns are certainly one of those things that could provide some excellent and practical safety options. Yet, major manufacturers don't pursue them and people actively BOYCOT and PROTEST against smart weapons in this nation.

Imagine if the parents of that 6 year old had a gun that had been setup to only be able to be fired by the parents? Kid shows up to school, pulls out the gun.... "click" ... Nothing happens. Imagine this on a national level where a criminal breaks into your home, steals your gun, then points it at you and "click"... nothing happens. It's not for every person or situation, but it is one of those things that would help.

Still, until all gun owners are 100% liable for maintaining their guns and are held accountable, this nation will continue to have a gun issue. From people buying for others, to casual buyers who never once practice their use, to the lazy who just leave them sitting around for kids to find.

There are some, and I would daresay that most are responsible gun owners. But, this nation has failed to protect its citizens from the guns we have. While we improve cars and work to make them safer, guns continue to just shoot upward in the number of deaths caused annually. I'm not against the second amendment, but I'm not sure we can ever enact any useful gun legislation without some sort of modification to it.

WRT the 6 year old, I have seen or heard absolutely nothing about a father. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume the reason this kid's mother bought the gun is because of the possibility that the father is violent and she wanted to be prepared if he violates a restraining/no contact order.

Smart weapons could be a solution, but for any safety measures that someone invents, someone else will come up with a way to bypass it. How many times does a smart phone owner need to reposition their thumb/finger in order to set the phone's sensor? I had to do it many times and it still doesn't always unlock the phone. If that happens with a gun, someone is gonna die and it won't necessarily be the one(s) who are looking at the muzzle.

All of the training, intended locking up and teaching kids to leave guns alone are fine, until carelessness rears its ugly head. It takes only a few seconds for a curious kid to grab a bun and pull the trigger or run off and hide a gun, so they can take it to school for Show & Tell, or worse.

We won't know what made this 6 year old shoot his teacher, but it seems to be another symptom of a larger problem that's not just carelessness- why did his mom decide that she needs a gun? If it's domestic violence, it's another problem that's part of the mental health group. If she bought it because of random break-ins in their area, that's another issue, which might be mixed with others.

This country needs to address mental health in a meaningful way. I don't know how people who are frequently violent can be considered 'mentally healthy'.

 

[BMXTRIX]

WRT the 6 year old, I have seen or heard absolutely nothing about a father. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume the reason this kid's mother bought the gun is because of the possibility that the father is violent and she wanted to be prepared if he violates a restraining/no contact order.

Smart weapons could be a solution, but for any safety measures that someone invents, someone else will come up with a way to bypass it. How many times does a smart phone owner need to reposition their thumb/finger in order to set the phone's sensor? I had to do it many times and it still doesn't always unlock the phone. If that happens with a gun, someone is gonna die and it won't necessarily be the one(s) who are looking at the muzzle.

All of the training, intended locking up and teaching kids to leave guns alone are fine, until carelessness rears its ugly head. It takes only a few seconds for a curious kid to grab a bun and pull the trigger or run off and hide a gun, so they can take it to school for Show & Tell, or worse.

We won't know what made this 6 year old shoot his teacher, but it seems to be another symptom of a larger problem that's not just carelessness- why did his mom decide that she needs a gun? If it's domestic violence, it's another problem that's part of the mental health group. If she bought it because of random break-ins in their area, that's another issue, which might be mixed with others.

This country needs to address mental health in a meaningful way. I don't know how people who are frequently violent can be considered 'mentally healthy'.

I find the excuses against smart guns really silly. No offense on this one, but the idea is to improve safety, not perfect it. If someone steals your smart gun, they still have to hack it before they can shoot you in the head with it, that may be something that can be done quickly, like in ten minutes or less at some point, but they still can't shoot you in the head with it then and there. Likewise, if it takes two seconds instead of one second to unlock to protect yourself, then that may make a difference, but more likely it won't. With a quality smart gun, it will unlock quickly and in a manner you are comfortable with using. The idea is that we should have a MASSIVE push towards them as an option, not an active effort to stop them from being the norm in the USA.

That six year old wouldn't have done crap with a smart gun is my bottom line point.

All the training in the world becomes meaningless when carelessness is removed from the equation and a parent could leave a fully loaded, fully usable, smart weapon in their infants crib and it would never be able to go off.

The reason the mom of a six year old needed a gun is very much her business. The fact that she allowed her six year old to get his hands on it is pure recklessness and led to a tragedy that should be able to be easily avoided, and I believe smart weapons would solve this issue for a ton of people. Some will never use them... and so what? Who cares if Johnny Truckdriver doesn't want a smart gun? Alice Momofthree should still have that option.

Smart guns remove the opportunistic usage, mishandling usage, and easy unauthorized usage from the equation. It becomes seatbelts or airbags for a gun. It won't stop death, murder, or even occasional accidents, but it should be heavily embraced.

 

[MaxInValrico]

I find the excuses against smart guns really silly. No offense on this one, but the idea is to improve safety, not perfect it. If someone steals your smart gun, they still have to hack it before they can shoot you in the head with it, that may be something that can be done quickly, like in ten minutes or less at some point, but they still can't shoot you in the head with it then and there. Likewise, if it takes two seconds instead of one second to unlock to protect yourself, then that may make a difference, but more likely it won't. With a quality smart gun, it will unlock quickly and in a manner you are comfortable with using. The idea is that we should have a MASSIVE push towards them as an option, not an active effort to stop them from being the norm in the USA.

That six year old wouldn't have done crap with a smart gun is my bottom line point.

All the training in the world becomes meaningless when carelessness is removed from the equation and a parent could leave a fully loaded, fully usable, smart weapon in their infants crib and it would never be able to go off.

The reason the mom of a six year old needed a gun is very much her business. The fact that she allowed her six year old to get his hands on it is pure recklessness and led to a tragedy that should be able to be easily avoided, and I believe smart weapons would solve this issue for a ton of people. Some will never use them... and so what? Who cares if Johnny Truckdriver doesn't want a smart gun? Alice Momofthree should still have that option.

Smart guns remove the opportunistic usage, mishandling usage, and easy unauthorized usage from the equation. It becomes seatbelts or airbags for a gun. It won't stop death, murder, or even occasional accidents, but it should be heavily embraced.

Why aren't (or are they?) sold today?

 

[BMXTRIX]

Why aren't (or are they?) sold today?

They are sold, but they have faced STIFF opposition for no obvious reason. Up to, and including, death threats to owners of smart gun manufacturing.

This is the idiocrity that is gun culture in the USA. It is such a weak stance that anything that may disrupt the gun industry in any way is an immediate threat.

I can't explain it, because I don't have that mindset.

 

[highfigh]

I find the excuses against smart guns really silly. No offense on this one, but the idea is to improve safety, not perfect it. If someone steals your smart gun, they still have to hack it before they can shoot you in the head with it, that may be something that can be done quickly, like in ten minutes or less at some point, but they still can't shoot you in the head with it then and there. Likewise, if it takes two seconds instead of one second to unlock to protect yourself, then that may make a difference, but more likely it won't. With a quality smart gun, it will unlock quickly and in a manner you are comfortable with using. The idea is that we should have a MASSIVE push towards them as an option, not an active effort to stop them from being the norm in the USA.

That six year old wouldn't have done crap with a smart gun is my bottom line point.

All the training in the world becomes meaningless when carelessness is removed from the equation and a parent could leave a fully loaded, fully usable, smart weapon in their infants crib and it would never be able to go off.

The reason the mom of a six year old needed a gun is very much her business. The fact that she allowed her six year old to get his hands on it is pure recklessness and led to a tragedy that should be able to be easily avoided, and I believe smart weapons would solve this issue for a ton of people. Some will never use them... and so what? Who cares if Johnny Truckdriver doesn't want a smart gun? Alice Momofthree should still have that option.

Smart guns remove the opportunistic usage, mishandling usage, and easy unauthorized usage from the equation. It becomes seatbelts or airbags for a gun. It won't stop death, murder, or even occasional accidents, but it should be heavily embraced.

OK, let's look at this scenario-

A cop or homeowner is attacked and their smart gun is flung away, where a 'good samaritan' could pick it up and use it to make the attacker stop. If the attacker knows it's a smart gun, they might be beaten with it, but they'll just continue beating the victim.

There IS no perfect solution. One side wants to think that removing guns will solve the problem and that's just not true. If the 'removal' involves people turning them in with/without being paid, the only thing that can be guaranteed is this: not all guns will be turned in because some just don't want to give up what they have, another group won't because they would then be able to use them rampantly for more crimes than we have now.

Seat belts aren't a passive restraint- people often refuse to use them and even if they are the type that automatically wrap themselves around the driver and passengers, it can be defeated.

You're looking at one, isolated incident where only one person was shot. Maybe looking at the whole picture would be more productive and to do that, you need to see who's killing whom and why. THAT'S where the problems lie. This shooting was preventable, but it still happened.

Nobody on the gun control side addresses changing human behavior. Why is that?

 

[highfigh]

They are sold, but they have faced STIFF opposition for no obvious reason. Up to, and including, death threats to owners of smart gun manufacturing.

This is the idiocrity that is gun culture in the USA. It is such a weak stance that anything that may disrupt the gun industry in any way is an immediate threat.

I can't explain it, because I don't have that mindset.

Death threats to smart gun manufacturers.........that's a bit ironic, don't you think? It's very similar to anti-abortion activists killing doctors who perform abortions........"We value life so much we're willing to kill anyone who kills fetuses".

Have you seen the scene in the original Men In Black, where J and K are sitting on a park bench? J says "People are smart" and K responds with "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it".

Hundreds of years ago, people killed what they didn't understand. How little, humans have changed.

There's no reason for a kid to be able to grab a gun. Most kids are naturally curious and parents/guardians need to remember that, if they ever thought about it, at all.

 

[Sigberg Audio]

In Norway all guns have to be registered, and all guns have to be kept in a gun safe at all times except when it is being actively used. During transport, guns and ammo must be kept separate.

This seems like a pretty simple way to keep accidental shootings at roughly zero. What are the arguments against similar measures in the US?

 

[davidscott]

In Norway all guns have to be registered, and all guns have to be kept in a gun safe at all times except when it is being actively used. During transport, guns and ammo must be kept separate.

This seems like a pretty simple way to keep accidental shootings at roughly zero. What are the arguments against similar measures in the US?

Sounds reasonable unless you need the gun for home defense. Pretty hard to get it out of the safe. But I agree all guns should be registered and background checks should be mandatory.

 

[lovinthehd]

Sounds reasonable unless you need the gun for home defense. Pretty hard to get it out of the safe. But I agree all guns should be registered and background checks should be mandatory.

How many times has home defense been an issue for you? It's never been an issue for me or my extended family members....

 

[mtrycrafts]

How many times has home defense been an issue for you? It's never been an issue for me or my extended family members....

Must be all the OJ and coffee I drink.
It worked for a very long time for me. Same for car accidents.

 

[Trell]

Sounds reasonable unless you need the gun for home defense. Pretty hard to get it out of the safe. But I agree all guns should be registered and background checks should be mandatory.

You’ll have to give a valid reason for owning a gun, like hunting or competition. A gun for self defense is normally not a valid reason. Hand guns have even more restrictions.

 

[Sigberg Audio]

Sounds reasonable unless you need the gun for home defense. Pretty hard to get it out of the safe. But I agree all guns should be registered and background checks should be mandatory.

Yes, that's not allowed in Norway. Specifics: You can not purchase firearms for home/self defense (only hunting or competition). If you were to somehow end up in a situation where some one breaks into your home, and you are able to get to your gun and shoot the intruder, you had to reasonably argue that you feared for the life of you and/or your family. In such a case you would typically be fine. If you just shot someone for trespassing (or even breaking in), you'd likely go to jail for murder. For context, this is pretty much an unheard of situation in Norway. I would expect it's not huge in most parts of the US either.

I googled it quickly, and the newest incident of something like that in Norway that I could find was a guy who shot an intruder with a shotgun (he was lightly injured). That was over 20 years ago.

But for the sake of argument I guess you could have a small safe for a handgun + a loaded magazine in the bedroom and still be able to get that out pretty fast if you heard an intruder? And then keep the rest of the guns (like rifles or whatever you have) in a regular gun safe.

 

[highfigh]

In Norway all guns have to be registered, and all guns have to be kept in a gun safe at all times except when it is being actively used. During transport, guns and ammo must be kept separate.

This seems like a pretty simple way to keep accidental shootings at roughly zero. What are the arguments against similar measures in the US?

Guns and ammo being transported are supposed to be kept separate when the gun owner doesn't have a concealed carry permit- the gun is supposed to be in a locked case, gun safe or other secure place and if it's not secured, the ammo is supposed to be separated from the gun.

We have those rules- the only ones who argue against any safety measures and laws are people who don't want to obey the requirements and laws, people who are lazy & careless and those who are too stupid to think about what they're doing to decrease safety.

A local TV station has a video on YouTube about the number of guns that have been stolen in Milwaukee, WI over the last two years- 1600 were stolen from cars because they weren't secured. Now, cars are being targeted specifically because the thieves KNOW people are too stupid to lock them in a safe place.

If it wouldn't be so difficult to implement, locking down whole city blocks in order to prevent anyone leaving, so every house, car, garage, shed and person could be searched, would result in the confiscation of millions of illegal guns. A problem with this is that, once the first block is locked down and the word gets out about what's happening, the rest of the country would look like the start of a Formula 1 race, with people scurrying around in order to take their guns to a place where they won't be easily found or to delay confiscation. The legal fight over this would take a long time.

Only an extremely small number of US shootings are accidental- the rest are intentional and THAT's what needs to change. According to the US Census link, 37.9% of people are living in poverty- that's roughly 126 MILLION people. If poverty is solved, the problems with crime and violence will be solved, as well.

 

[BMXTRIX]

This seems like a pretty simple way to keep accidental shootings at roughly zero. What are the arguments against similar measures in the US?

The second amendment.

The birth of this nation was based upon civilians deciding that they would not tolerate rule by a separate nation and they rose up against that nation with the weapons they owned. They decided at that point, they would not allow the government of any nation, including their own, to be allowed a right to disarm them.

I am NOT saying I agree with the current way this is handled, but merely explaining why the regulations are not easy to pass. The right to own a gun isn't just a part of this nation's mentality, it is actually a part of the Constitution. This makes it much easier for those who don't like regulations to fight it in court. To make the argument that any law that makes things safer, also is in violation of the Second Amendment. Which is why I think it may be time to adjust that Amendment. So proper laws can be passed that actually have some teeth in them.

I've always wondered why a national gun registry would be wrong. It certainly does not impede the right of a individual to own a gun.

 

[highfigh]

The second amendment.

The birth of this nation was based upon civilians deciding that they would not tolerate rule by a separate nation and they rose up against that nation with the weapons they owned. They decided at that point, they would not allow the government of any nation, including their own, to be allowed a right to disarm them.

I am NOT saying I agree with the current way this is handled, but merely explaining why the regulations are not easy to pass. The right to own a gun isn't just a part of this nation's mentality, it is actually a part of the Constitution. This makes it much easier for those who don't like regulations to fight it in court. To make the argument that any law that makes things safer, also is in violation of the Second Amendment. Which is why I think it may be time to adjust that Amendment. So proper laws can be passed that actually have some teeth in them.

I've always wondered why a national gun registry would be wrong. It certainly does not impede the right of a individual to own a gun.

Second Amendment doesn't have anything to do with telling people to separate their guns & ammo during transport or anything else that has to do with gun safety.

A registry, in theory, could make confiscation easier than just going house to house and car to car but this assumes people won't hide, sell, ship their guns in order to prevent it. Not being paranoid, but if the government has info about make/model/capacity/owner's name & address and other personal info, I'm sure you get the idea. OTOH, so many whose guns were stolen don't even know about it until they need one, they move, or the thought suddenly comes to them that they own a gun. Only laws that prevent gun ownership and possession are covered by 2A and arguments WRT possession/carry are the ones that have changed the most, recently.

Also, Red Flag is being used in some cases, in the same way people are 'Swatted'.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Second Amendment doesn't have anything to do with telling people to separate their guns & ammo during transport or anything else that has to do with gun safety.

Yet, it's the invoking of 2A that prevents the implementation of common sense regulations, such as safe storage.

"Y'all makin' me lock up muh guns!? That impedes muh raght tuh bear arms!!!

 

[highfigh]

Yet, it's the invoking of 2A that prevents the implementation of common sense regulations, such as safe storage.

"Y'all makin' me lock up muh guns!? That impedes muh raght tuh bear arms!!!

It's the distortion of the meaning of the laws that causes the problems when idiots don't want to maintain safety- their "I have a right to my guns" should end when they demonstrate that they can't carry, use or store them safely and by 'use', I mean it in the context of being at a range, hunting (lord helmet Cheney is a great example of this) or some other situation where they ignore the rule 'Never aim at something you don't intend to destroy'.

It's amazing that so many do such stupid things but given a freedom, many people will f&ck it up for everyone else.

Edit- I was going to change VP Cheney's first name after the forum changed it, but decided that it fit so well I would leave it.