How can we regulate guns ... ?

You essentially accused me of using it when I hadn't, you were responding to a post of mine where I did not use it, and you are now accusing me of probably going to use it anyway. What a bunch of *&$#@_#(&^^@$%)**

This is the core silly idea on the gun control side of this argument. The silly idea is that THINGS AREN'T GOING TO CHANGE, that the circumstances in which these statements apply are going to stay the same, which denies what I've been trying to argue, that WHEN YOU RESTRICT OR TAKE AWAY GUNS YOU CREATE THE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR WHICH THEY WOULD BE NEEDED. That's
the point being made by the video and the books on the subject I mentioned.The whole point of the Second Amendment is to protect us against circumstances that are less likely to happen BECAUSE WE HAVE GUNS. Take them away and THAT's when we are set up for the circumstances where we REALLY need them.Sheesh.

Faith, the topic is "how can we regulate guns" and so the question is what regulations do you think would be able to reduce unwanted gun deaths and injury.What regulations can we make to reduce the numbers of people killed in mass shootings.What regulations can we make to reduce the numbers of people killed in criminal shootings.What regulations can we make to reduce the numbers of people killed in gun accidents.First let me stipulate that I don't think regulations regarding the use of guns for suicide would have a significant impact -- some other means would likely be found. The only thing I can see for this is allowing medically assisted suicide, which would include counseling and approval criteria (incurable painful disease, etc). I don't see the rate of suicides dropping whether regulations are made or not.Second let me stipulate that I don't think regulations regarding premeditated murder with guns would have a significant effect -- some other means would likely be used. I don't see the rate of premeditated murder dropping whether regulations are made or not.I would also note that taking these two categories out of the statistics would reduce gun crime statistics considerably, and we could focus on the real issues where regulations might have some effect.For instance I would think that hunters would like to know that other hunters are well trained in the use of their weapons, trained in the task of hunting, and disciplined enough to hunt without causing accidents, that they are using an appropriate weapon for hunting, and that they are properly licensed to hunt. This could be handled through the hunting license process and repeated each year. It could also entail severe legal action on poaching.There is no right to hunt animals.Currently there are bow seasons, black powder seasons and open seasons: would it be appropriate to limit the types of guns and ammunition loading systems that could be used in open seasons? Say I have a rifle that I have to manually load with 5 bullets instead of inserting a loaded clip, would that not be appropriate to use hunting? It takes a couple of minutes to reload, plenty of time while waiting for another deer, yes?Personally, if I couldn't hit my target animal with 5 shots, then I would consider myself such a lousy shot that I would be better off spending time at a target gallery to improve my ability. Would you agree?If I couldn't get a consistent bullseye - say I had parkinsons and my hands shake too much - should I be allowed to hunt with a semi-automatic gun?Similarly with self defense, I would think that self defense advocates would like to know that other self defense advocates are well trained in the use of their weapons, trained in the task of self defense, disciplined enough to defend themselves without causing accidents, that they are using an appropriate weapon for self defense, and that they are properly licensed for self defense. This could be handled through the self defense gun license process and repeated each year. It could also entail severe legal action that was not self defense.There is no right to hunt criminals, that is the job of the police.There is no right to shoot people when there is no direct clear and present danger to you personally.So what regulations do you think could be established to improve things?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : #1

Here's a regulation I could go with: Pass a law that there should be at least one armed person on school premises for every couple hundred children or something like that.I also don't mind if you want to require more training. Nothing wrong with training, the more the better.But you can't regulate criminals, as you yourself seem to acknowledge. Any regulations designed for that purpose only succeed in penalizing the good guys.Some people I know who favor possession of guns are OK with banning the gun called AR5(?). If it's OK with them it's OK with me.But my impression is that there are enough regulations. I know there are an awful lot of them. If they don't do what you want them to do it's because regulating guns isn't the solution to the problem you want it to be. The problem is not guns.Hunters I happen to know personally (and I personally am no fan of hunting) have no fear of other hunters. Why do you think they should have? They are busy teaching their own children how to be responsible about guns when they take them out hunting with them.The "gun culture" is made up of people who are responsible about guns and they've generally grown up with guns. The ones you are worried about are not among the millions who are responsible about guns. You are talking about regulation as if you think guns are the problem. They aren't.I'm not part of the gun culture. I did some shooting with my family but was never interested in it even though I was a pretty good shot. I hated the kick of the rifle. Who needs a sore shoulder especially when your father takes care of the gopher problem anyway.I don't know much about guns and don't want to, my interest is in keeping the good guys armed who want to be armed, because I appreciate the importance of the Second Amendment which few others here seem to do. My interest is only in keeping BASIC self defense guns, whatever those happen to be, in the hands of law-abiding citizens, and the fact that every time some criminals kill people logic-challenged and emotionally distraught people rise up with the knee-jerk solution of further restricting or banning guns when that can't possibly stop such events is a huge red flag to me. The way this happens is evidence that this is NOT about protecting the children in the schools, it's about depriving us of our liberties, whether you want to recognize that or not. So my answer is, this thread is irrelevant to the actual problem you want to solve.

Thank you Faith for repeating what has been shown to be a false solution. All it will do is make you feel good, and let you ignore the rest of the issues, ... at least until the next shooting incident shows that it doesn't work ... So it is okay to ban semi-automatic guns that load clips of ammunition rather than manual loading. So you don't need to participate further in this thread. Thanks for your help.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : #1

Petrophysics, the topic is "how can we regulate guns" and so the question is what regulations do you think would be able to reduce unwanted gun deaths and injury.What regulations can we make to reduce the numbers of people killed in mass shootings.What regulations can we make to reduce the numbers of people killed in criminal shootings.What regulations can we make to reduce the numbers of people killed in gun accidents.First let me stipulate that I don't think regulations regarding the use of guns for suicide would have a significant impact -- some other means would likely be found. The only thing I can see for this is allowing medically assisted suicide, which would include counseling and approval criteria (incurable painful disease, etc). I don't see the rate of suicides dropping whether regulations are made or not.Second let me stipulate that I don't think regulations regarding premeditated murder with guns would have a significant effect -- some other means would likely be used. I don't see the rate of premeditated murder dropping whether regulations are made or not.I would also note that taking these two categories out of the statistics would reduce gun crime statistics considerably, and we could focus on the real issues where regulations might have some effect.For instance I would think that hunters would like to know that other hunters are well trained in the use of their weapons, trained in the task of hunting, and disciplined enough to hunt without causing accidents, that they are using an appropriate weapon for hunting, and that they are properly licensed to hunt. This could be handled through the hunting license process and repeated each year. It could also entail severe legal action on poaching.There is no right to hunt animals.Currently there are bow seasons, black powder seasons and open seasons: would it be appropriate to limit the types of guns and ammunition loading systems that could be used in open seasons? Say I have a rifle that I have to manually load with 5 bullets instead of inserting a loaded clip, would that not be appropriate to use hunting? It takes a couple of minutes to reload, plenty of time while waiting for another deer, yes?Personally, if I couldn't hit my target animal with 5 shots, then I would consider myself such a lousy shot that I would be better off spending time at a target gallery to improve my ability. Would you agree?If I couldn't get a consistent bullseye - say I had parkinsons and my hands shake too much - should I be allowed to hunt with a semi-automatic gun?Similarly with self defense, I would think that self defense advocates would like to know that other self defense advocates are well trained in the use of their weapons, trained in the task of self defense, disciplined enough to defend themselves without causing accidents, that they are using an appropriate weapon for self defense, and that they are properly licensed for self defense. This could be handled through the self defense gun license process and repeated each year. It could also entail severe legal action that was not self defense.There is no right to hunt criminals, that is the job of the police.There is no right to shoot people when there is no direct clear and present danger to you personally.So what regulations do you think could be established to improve things?Enjoy.

Responding that regulations are a stupid response to the problem is addressing the topic of the thread. And arguing the case for that is addressing the topic of the thread.And you are living in fantasy land if you think you've proved that armed people wouldn't improve the problem. You're just playing with numbers and deceiving yourself.Regulations are not the answer.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The opening post says to assume, for the sake of discussion, that reducing the number of guns would reduce the number of gun deaths: Those who reject that assumption must still accept it at least as a hypothetical to participate in this thread.Those who wish to discuss the assumption itself and related issues should take it to the Gun Control Again thread.

Objective empirical evidence is the "numbers game" when it comes to supporting an assertion, no deception involved: facts are facts. You could try it.3 Common-Sense Gun Laws That Are Popular With Everyone (Including Republicans) - Upworthy

quote:

---

3 Common-Sense Gun Laws That Are Popular With Everyone (Including Republicans)

​

America isn't nearly as divided on common-sense gun policy as cable news would lead you to believe. Here are three regulations Congress could enact right now with broad public support.

​

---

So we should pass universal background checks on all gun sales, mental health restrictions, and set up a national database to track gun sales.For starters.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : added quote & reply

Mike Luckovich for January 20, 2013 - GoComics The puppet on the left arm is the media ...Lalo Alcaraz for January 16, 2013 - GoComics Perhaps a reality test could help ...Tom Toles for January 20, 2013 - GoComics But don't take too long ...Ted Rall for January 18, 2013 - GoComics The only way to end the cycle of violence is to put the weapons down.Enjoy

Because those aren't murders.... and restricting guns could potentially reduce murders from 13,752 to 3,623 a 74% reduction. That's a LOT of potential.Enjoy

So, then all we need is to define depraved person: someone who wants a type of gun that is capable of killing a lot of people in a short period of time and can be reloaded quickly with clips of ammunition, a type of gun that serves no rational civilian purpose.Enjoy.

If cars are so good for killing people, why do you need a Gun for self defense? You already have a car.

Nothing to dissect -- the numbers speak for themselves. This is also the kind of response I get from gun owning\friendly friends. Your first link:

quote:

---

Administration aides have said that the president is likely to call for renewing the ban on the most powerful rifles, even in the face of heavy opposition from the National Rifle Association. In the poll, 58 percent of Americans support the ban, which expired in 2004 after 10 years; 39 percent oppose it.

---

I also found these survey results instructive: ABC Poll Results (page down):Q: For each item I name, please tell me how much, if at all, you think it contributes to gun violence in this country:

• the availability of semi-automatic handguns? NET Great deal/Somewhat 69%
• the availability of assault weapons? NET Great deal/Somewhat 73%
• the availability of high-capacity ammunition clips? NET Great deal/Somewhat 70%
• inadequate background checks before guns are sold? NET Great deal/Somewhat 83%
• violence in TV programs, movies and video games? NET Great deal/Somewhat 72%
• inadequate treatment of mentally ill people? NET Great deal/Somewhat 85%
• lack of individual responsibility by gun owners? NET Great deal/Somewhat 83%

Enjoy

I've used a 3D printer to print out a prototype for testing that was made with metal flakes bonded in an epoxy matrix that was a strong as aluminum. It proved out, and the next thing we did was print out a mold for casting the parts. By reducing the R&D time from months to days it paid for the currently high cost of the process.Enjoy.