There Have Been 5 Major Shootings in the U.S. in the Past Week Alone

Prohibition on guns might help some, but like with drugs, I doubt it's a solution.

 

I support the Second Amendment to the extent that I don't believe that firearms can or should be banned altogether. The Second Amendment though doesn't prevent restrictions on the type of firearms and ammunition, expanded background checks or registration.

 

True making guns illegal wouldn't end gun violence and I don't think that is practical or possible. Moves though like registration, allowing ATF records to be digitized along with background checks though will make it easier to track and guns used in crimes and also prevent people who shouldn't have guns buying them legally.

People argue the issue of bans when the problem is much deeper than that as laws pushed by the gun lobby have hampered the enforcement of even existing gun laws.

 

I can't imagine why the right would pushback on something like that. They keep talking about how good guys are getting their guns taken away. Well with background checks and mental health evaluations you are making sure only good, sane guys are getting guns.

Its like a self admittance of guilt and insanity if you are opposed. For a group that accuses so much of the other side supporting terrorists and traitors, their group decides to openly defend cold blooded murderers, thieves, thugs, and the mentally insane all in the name of being petty.

 

Major shootings?

stats for Chicago.. (updated yesterday)

Jan. 1, 2014 - June 11, 2014 - 9401 shooting victims

Jan. 1, 2013 - Dec. 31, 2013 - 2,185 shooting victims

guess they don't count as "major" shootings.

Source

http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/shootings

where's the outrage?

 

We already have background checks. Why does your side continue to gloss over that fact?

As for a "mental health evaluation"... So, who is going to conduct these evaluations? And who is going to pay for them? Does every single firearms owner in the country have to go through one? How often will everyone be evaluated? What if someone is perfectly fine with their meds, but not without them? What conditions will you designate as risky, too risky to own a firearm? Who will decide what those conditions are - a psychiatrist, a psychologist, or a bureaucrat?

And will we also have periodic evaluations so that you may continue to exercise your privilege of driving on public roadways? If not, then why not? FAR more people die in automobile accidents than firearm-related incidents. I got sideswiped by a blind man once, for God's sake. Shouldn't everyone have to be evaluated periodically for this, too?

Blah Blah Blah Partisan Nonsense Blah Blah Blah

 

It seems pretty obvious that we don't have effective background checks as so many people who should never be allowed to own a gun are able to acquire them with relative ease.

These are all questions that should be debated. However, the GOP is not even ALLOWING such a debate to occur, much less presenting reasonable answers to these questions.

I think we should.

Yes, but the major difference is that cars are not designed to be killing machines. That is not their primary purpose, when someone dies in a car accident, there is zero chance that the cars involved were specifically designed to crash and then to do the most damage possible when they did.

If you can't see the difference, then the following quote applies far more to you than it does to the people with whom you are conversing.

 

40% of gun sales do not come from federally-licensed gun dealers, meaning that 40% of the market is immune to background checks.

Gun advocates should really stop using automobile deaths as a defense. Automobiles are HEAVILY regulated. If anything, that is an argument for more regulations on guns. Can you imagine how unsafe the roads would be without the regulations we have in place?

And I am not calling for a ban on guns. It does seem to me, however, that banning 40-round extended pistol mags and 100-round ammo drums for ARs (like they were when I was a kid) has no valid counter-argument.

 

Other than the fact that banning them will have no discernible effect upon firearms violence statistics whatsoever? I can reload a mag much faster than the time it would take an individual to clear one of the many malfunctions that both of those items regularly cause. You should hope that more people use them in shooting incidents, because they are both highly prone to jamming.

You do realize that both of those items are pretty much novelty items that no serious firearms enthusiasts would use, right?

 

I don't think you have thought about the differences in how the two are regulated.

 

Criminals don't buy their guns at Academy. They buy them person to person WITHOUT a background check. Of course crazy law abiding citizens pass these background checks easily which emphasizes how lacking they are in preventing gun violence.

 

You do realize that the ahole who shot up the Batman theater had them, right?

And I know that his 100-round drum jammed...

So, you're saying these things have no real use and no real gun enthusiasts would use them. So...I ask you...why does ANYONE need one? Basically you're saying that it's okay to sell those because only idiots use them. That is reason to BAN THEM.

 

I am not the one that brought up the ridiculous analogy comparing automobile deaths with firearm deaths.

 

You did say one was more heavily regulated. With regards to possession, that is just flat out false.

 

And criminals will continue to buy them from individuals whether you mandate a background check or not. How do you not understand this simple concept?

As for crazy individuals, see my above questions. There is no good solution to that question.

 

Go ahead and ban them, I wouldn't give a crap. I would never use them because I know how unreliable they are. I won't miss them, and neither will the vast majority of firearms owners.

The problem we have with banning things like this is that from there, you will move on to regular 30 round mags for rifles, then 15 round mags for pistols, then 10 rounders, then 7 rounders, then 5 rounders... We resist the bans because we know where they will lead.

As for the Colorado shooting... Had he used regular PMAGs he would not have had any malfunctions. Would you rather he didn't have a malfunction? That probably saved a couple of lives.

 

I don't think you have either. We can replace possession with title & operation, which is the way cars work, that's fine by me.

But regardless I'm all for ditching the current gun requirements and trading them for the regime imposed on automobiles., particularly insurance requirments.

It will be the best way to place the costs of gun ownership on gun owners, rather than gun victims. It's an effective, free-market based solution.

 

Excellent. I can build any gun I want, transport it anywhere in the country I want. Use it on private land however I want, as well as off road public lands.

Other the other hand when I see an old smoking pickup truck on a farm that has had the smog equipment removed, the BATFE will come and send him to federal prison for 10 years. Who cares if it hasn't seen a paved road in 5 years.

 

Sure. Why not. As long as you're licensed, insured and taxed - I don't see an issue. In fact we can even use the bullet tax we implement to subsidize a system of public gun safes (parking lots) when you feel the need to roll with your Desert Eagle down to the local Chipotle or whatever.

 

Don't need any of that to build a car and trailer it to Chipolte.

Also Desert Eagles are really crap. They just look good in movies. They are not the Gaboon Viper of the handgun world.