I'm confused to where everyone is standing on Gun Control. Quick poll.

... but if we don't do something to reduce guns (certainly assault weapons with a round limit, replaceable magazines, and certain types of bullets), and at a nation-wide level, then I will change my position to outright banning guns.

 

I'm on record for not infringing any further against gun rights. There has been a lot of unplaced fear about mass shootings when over the last 10 years more people have been killed by lightning than mass shooting death.

 

I'm happy with where we are now.

 

No private ownership of semi-automatic or automatic weapons unless an active or reserve member of a military or paramilitary organization.

 

I see what you did there. Very clever, but you could trigger some passionate responses, once public safety is involved.

On teh serious, I do not really like the options, but I guess I am in the "some more regulation." I am just on about the size of magazines, background checks on all purchases (40% of legal sales avoid this somehow?), and I have the fantasy of a gun liability insurance. I also think it should be a LOT harder to buy anything semiautomatic than it is to buy a hunting rifle.

 

You didn't vote

 

Would like to see less gun free zones. Obvious trend involving these places.

 

Just so you guys know, polls showed 42% wanted stronger gun control before the CT shooting, and that changed to 50% after the shooting. Those numbers will normalize some. This is one of the 50/50 debates in America where it is tough to gain ground either way.

 

There is no "obvious trend" involving these places. They're typically places where a lot of people gather, and usually publicly owned (transit stations, courthouses, schools, universities, parks, etc). The rest, like malls and movie theatres, are privately owned. The reason these places have shootings is because there's a bunch of people there. Not because they're "gun free". So, if you want to stop shootings, you'll have to ban large groups of people, not gun free zones.

That being said, gun free zones are a pretty hollow, symbolic gesture given that we've already let the cat out of the bag in terms of proper gun laws. It's the equivalent of trying to create "no driving" zones on a freeway after you've made it legal and affordable for everyone to own a Ferrari.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund

That's a trend

 

more easily available is a mischaracterization, no one is arguing background checks should be loosened

 

More Regulation

Rocket River

 

This is an interesting way to look at it.

I would still prefer crazies not having any access to guns to a shootout in a crowded theater.

 

Since I have already spoken on the integrity of the source cited in the other thread you posted this... I will just point out that this "data" equally supports my conclusion that a nation-wide solution is needed (and now).

 

Lott is a liar and I do not trust anything he says (see other gun thread).

Trend does not imply causation.

 

We can't have numerous mass slaughters just because of the gun industry and their brainwashed followers. The emotional and money costs to American society are too high. We need to start the process of eliminating this.


Their freedom to admire their guns or hear them go bang or target shoot or hunt must be balanced by the suffering and cost to modern society society.

Many of the gun nuts are market fundies who like to put a market value on everything. Let's put a price on all the lost earnings of slaughtered children including projected lost earnings; let's do the same for all health care costs and lost earnings of the many more people who are disabled either totally or partially from guns.

We are a rich society but we cannot afford to have massively wasteful policies.