Summations Only

Because the gun lobby fights all attempts at this. That is the core of the unregulated gun sale problem.

"There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men."Robert A. Heinlein

You can't. I'm talking in generalities. NRA members are not likely to be criminals. People who accept and obey the laws are probably the good guys. You mean on the spur of the moment? I suppose he'd be hailed as a hero if he survived after the fact and got to talk about his change of heart. You seem to have some unspoken assumption behind what you are saying that I can't figure out yet. there is no way in this world we are ever going to have perfection. That officer would hate himself if a tragedy occurred. Life happens. What are you going to do to prevent such tragedies? Nothing that I know of and nothing I'm suggesting would solve such things. I don't see what this has to do with the gun control issues. Perhaps we could execute the officer at dawn for his negligence? He'd probably welcome it if such a tragedy happened. Why would we tell Johnny anything except to shove him out of the line of fire when we recognize a dangerous situation? If you are referring to my brother's once having been able to walk through school with his rifle, remember that he had the bolt out, which disables it, and if it ever came to having lots of rifles around for Johnny to see, that could be explained to him. But these days with shooters going into schools what can you do but yell "take cover?" These are not realistic comparisons you are making here. How realistic is that situation? I suppose if you think there's the possibility of a real danger, you could do a lot of yelling as you approach the house, "Don't shoot, we just need to use your phone!" or take cover behind a tree and wave a white flag. I don't know, Asgara, these don't seem like real problems to me. What's your thought here, that confiscating guns would make you safer or what? I think therapists should not be restricted in such ways, that you need to be free to determine if a patient is a danger and be able to report it. Don't accuse me of supporting anything that furthers "sales" of anything please. Well, the ONE situation I know about, which I just commented on, was due to the concern that the research would be politically biased. Perhaps we need more fair and intelligent research proposals.However, I think common sense can go some way to answering such questions where statistics can be biased anyway. So do those I know. So? Excuse me? Uh huh, as do the gun owners I know with reasonable laws that truly do serve safety. Some measures are necessary and good, AS I'VE SAID somewhere in this voluminous series of posts, but some are ridiculous and unnecessarily restricting and sometimes downright enabling of crime.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith, just what do you think gun control advocates are asking for? Everyone that I know of is asking for common sense things; many like we might use for motor vehicles.

• national standardization of background checks
• closing of loopholes in gun sale laws
• mandatory safety training with renewals
• proof of insurance
• proof of safe storage measures
• increased ability to vet the mentally ill

Which of these hinder gun ownership for the 'good guy with a gun?'You don't want to be accused of supporting anything that furthers 'sales' yet you bring up the NRA or it's members in your posts.... The NRA is the organization I was talking about.Several of the scenarios I listed were off the top of my head; situations where it would be nice to know who the good guys are. Several were nationally publicized incidents.A loaded pistol, a tragedy, and a N.H. chief charged - The Boston Globe Renisha McBride, Detroit woman, shot to death while seeking help after a car accident, family says - CBS NewsThis gentleman, David Waldman has been trying to keep a running tally of irresponsible gun ownership on a monthly basis. He is up to October with his 79th monthly tally.
100 More GunFAILs, which brings us to GunFAIL LXXIX, but we're still not caught up.

Are you saying they are criminals too then? The gun lobby? If so, then get a discussion going about this, I don't know anything about it.My point is only that too many gun laws tend to penalize the wrong people.

The list sounds fine with me but I'm not a gun owner, I would have to find out from them what problems might result from such measures, if any. Perhaps they're all fine.Also, to stay in context, a few of those measures might address the school shooting problem to some extent, that's open to discussion, but some others seem to have other kinds of problems in mind.I've already pointed out a few laws that have caused problems for gun owners and done nothing for the gun problems we're talking about.But to try to keep the focus here: I'm responding more to the emotional accusations of gun owners in general every time a crazy person shoots some people, which is what started this thread and is always the cause for gun control discussions. Gun control advocates lead the way with all sorts of accusations, even accusing those who defend gun rights against them of being insensitive to the sufferings caused by the crazy shooter. This although they themselves have been taking advantage of the situation to promote gun control. Their arguments may or may not be backed up by statistics that may or may not support their case.The problem that concerns me is that responsible gun owners are wrongly put on the defensive in these discussions, the Second Amendment always gets attacked, Americans get called names by the Brits and Canadians and so on. You are accusing them of being motivated by sales. That's YOUR argument, a pretty sleazy argument by the gun control people it seems to me, but maybe there is some justification for it, I don't know. If there is some, fine, but that's another subject. The NRA is always a part of these discussions because they are high-profile defenders of gun rights and their arguments support the Second Amendment and responsible gun owners. That's MY reason for supporting them. But there are also other spokesmen for the same positions who aren't NRA, and plenty of gun owners who are not members of the NRA. Let's keep these things in their right place please. None of them that I can see has anything whatever to do with the cause of the usual gun rights controversy which is the shootings of innocents by a crazy person and measures to address these things probably will not affect that problem either. Or the problems in the high crime areas either.That said, I think more training in gun safety may be a BIG factor in the shooting of the girl who was looking for help after her accident and the long list of accidents collected at the third link. Shooting someone on your porch without finding out why they are there is to my mind criminal negligence and the man should be prosecuted for it.A lot of these situations are human error that can't be solved by mechanical safety measures. That's where the only solution I can think of would be a barrage of gun safety information. Ask before you shoot. These days it probably has to be a constant concern never ever to leave a gun lying around. Ever. Should we prosecute those who forget? I don't know. Would it improve the overall safety of guns? That's the question. EDUCATE YOUR CHILDREN. The kids who shoot themselves and each other. Don't leave them around, yes, but on the other hand it used to be possible. Maybe it isn't any more, but still I'd ask: Were they taught about guns? Were they threatened with punishment if they disobeyed? Or were guns just left lying around and they picked them up etc.There's a lot that could be addressed about that long sad list, but again, the primary concern of this thread for me is the way national tragedies are used to vilify responsible gun owners. If you want to pursue how to deal with the problems on that list that's fine but it's another subject.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If that is what I was saying don't you think that is what I would have typed. You are so used to building strawmen it seems you cannot even read what people type. The gun lobby fights any regulations to rein in pawn shops, black market or any gun sales. That is fact. But all you do is assert. You provide no evidence or real life situations.

It sounds criminal to me, that's what I meant.I don't just assert, I argue reasonably. And I've given a few examples. I'll look for more.

These 1st amendment comments, and I am going to do no more, at least within this topic.The 1st Amendment's intent was to prohibit the restriction of the message, although it did mention a medium (Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. IF you wished to interpret it absolutely literally, then handwritten text would NOT be protected.Radio content is still speech, and the internet can easily be interpreted as being a modern "press". End of 1st Amendment comments.2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."Now, I think that the authors of the 2nd Amendment were unconcerned about defining "arms" or in anyway limiting the possession of "arms" because all "arms" of the time were acceptable to them. But the state of "arms" has since advanced what I would call several orders of magnitude. Does not the 2nd Amendment allow a citizen to have their own personal H-bomb? Had 1791 had the current "arms", would that amendment have been done as it were? I don't think so.MinnemooseusEdited by Minnemooseus, : Disable smilies.

I'm not sure all arms were acceptable for the citizen under the 2nd amendment. They had cannons in those days, they had gunpowder and could blow things up. Do you think the amendment had the possession of such weapons in mind for the average citizen? I have to suppose they had only the weapons that could reasonably be considered useful for self defense in mind. The musket? What about bow and arrow?

What sounds criminal? lobbying against laws?

The 2nd Amendment leaves a LOT to be desired concerning the details. If it were not part of the Constitution, it probably would be ruled unconstitutional for being too vague.Anyway, if there was to be any non-arbitrary defined limits on what "arms" the citizen could have, it seems to me to be what I presented in the first "The state of "Arms", 1791" message: I would think that would be 2nd Amendment protected, as would be knives and swords. And in 1791, bows and arrows, knives, and swords were probably more dangerous than firearms, as weapons of mass killing.Possessing modern firearms can give an individual the firepower of an entire 1791 army, and that might be an understatement.Added by edit: By the way, re: "The vast majority of gun owners in America are responsible law-abiding citizens." There's a thin line between "responsible" and "irresponsible idiot". But that's been much covered by others already.Moose--- An argument might be made that "The pen is mightier than the sword", but if I were in a room with a crazy person having a pen and a sword, it's not the pen that would concern me. ---Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added by edit.Edited by Minnemooseus, : Misspelled "too".

"Taking advantage of the situation"?Faith, when the Space Shuttle crashed, people said, let's try to make sure this doesn't happen again. When terrorists crashed planes into the Twin Towers, people said, hey, let's take steps to make sure this isn't repeated. If an oil well blows up, Faith, if a levee breaks, people's thoughts will turn to one question: how to build a better stable door. There is one, and only one kind of disaster, where you can get criticized for responding to it by suggesting preventative measures for the future. If a tragedy is caused by a a guy with a gun, why then and only then is it "taking advantage of the situation", is it exploiting a tragedy, is it a tasteless politicization of the issue, to say: let's try to stop this from happening again. Why is that, Faith? What makes bad things caused by psychopaths with firearms so different from every other bad thing that's happened in the entire history of ever, that we should react to them in a completely different way? Do explain.

duplicateEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm surprised this has to be answered again but I guess I shouldn't be. In a nutshell, it's because you think YOU are the only ones who care to change the situation, and you think YOUR solution is the only possible solution. Nave at best, malignantly myopic at worst.Again, you treat US as if WE didn't care about solving the problem. Gun rights people see it coming whenever such a tragedy occurs and just wait for it. The first thing that happens is that the gun control people come on saying how we have to deal with The Gun Problem in this country. We have to do something about the GUNS, have to control them, have to do away with them, everything is about the GUNS.So, with a great sigh, knowing what's coming, the gun rights people answer them that it is not the fault of the guns, it's the fault of the crazy person, and why weren't there some armed citizens on the scene to protect the victims or some such. Then, count on it, it occurred as soon as I entered this thread aeons ago, someone will accuse the gun rights advocate in tones of beside-themselves Righteous Indignation, of having the gall, the gross insensitivity to the sufferings of these poor people, to dare to politicize this situation at such a time.Look I already said this. I don't know if you are being stupid or disingenuous. But I'll continue. From our point of view THEY/YOU are the ones who politicized it by coming on with their/your gun control solution. But apparently you just see yourselves as the tenderhearted good guys and are utterly blind to your politicizing the event. "Golly gee, Faith, we just care about these poor people and want to do something to be sure this never happens again and you're just being an insensitive clod who doesn't care. Sniff."You have no ability whatever to even imagine that there is another point of view or you have so thoroughly dismissed it in your mind that you require us to argue it over and over again. We have completely different ideas about the CAUSES of the problem and completely different ideas about its solution. But you all come on as if there is only one right way of looking at it and that is your way which is that guns are the problem and the solution is to control guns. WE think that is totally the wrong idea, totally, and that it's stupid.And every time one of these crazy people shoots up a school WE know it's because the good guys have been prevented from being there by gun control already. We also may suspect the event was engineered, yes, indeed, paranoid loony here, by people who want to do away with the Second Amendment and reduce American citizens to being the slaves of some tyrant or other. Pick your tyrant, I think there are at least half a dozen candidates these days. Maybe they're all in cahoots. Maybe you're one of them.And there are some odd similarities between some of the situations, from the kind of gear the perps wear, though I may be getting this wrong, gun vests for instance, to the fact that many are on similar psychiatric drugs -- and I know I did a post on that way back there somewhere.In any case it is the gun control people who jump in to take political advantage of the situation, oh yes they do, that's the very first thing that happens with these events. Maybe well meaning gun control people who are simply unfamiliar with guns or fear guns and can't imagine a solution that could include guns.When such an event occurs, engineered or not there have been quite a few of them you must admit, the national atmosphere is emotionally superheated and it's during that time that the gun control advocates can make the most headway. It takes a calm rational atmosphere to make the case well for gun rights, but we aren't given a choice. In the fusillade of gun control rhetoric we have to answer NOW.So, are you nave or disingenuous? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.