Gun control strategy that satisfies both sides

Yup.
It's been regulated before.
I live in a state with constitutional carry; you don't even need a permit. But it's a rural state and hunting is our past time. So let's not think your views should apply to everyone, it doesn't . That's why we have states. Deal with it.

 

Pointing out the truth. Your generalizations are absurd.

 

That's a generalization. Be specific, which specific ones do you find absurd?

 

Uh huh. More meaninglessness.

 

We still see you. Lol

 

For one, that "criminals don't obey the law", Criminals obey the law the vast majority of the time. Like everyone, they're not going to be picked up for little crimes if they can avoid it. The vast majority of criminals pick and choose their victims, crime an time to minimize getting caught. The rest of the time they obey the law. You're just spouting the NRA line to avoid responsibility of thinking and being accurate.

 

uh huh

 

I don't parrot NRA anything to avoid anything. I am responsible for what I say, and do, and am accountable for both.
A criminal, by definition, is someone who carries that label for breaking the law. If so, they didn't follow the law they broke to become a criminal. what is inaccurate in that statement?

 

They can reinvest in Boeing and the workers can get jobs at McDonald's

 

Ask some schools if that is ok. Ask the parents of the slain.

 

So only if the death toll is zero should we stop with new gun control?

 

Keep in mind a child is more likely to be abducted traveling to or from school than they are to be shot while at school.

 

At least 1500 children die each year from brain cancer in USA. Argh....lets not continue research, that's an acceptable number....not!
Same with guns. One death is too many. Some guns should not be available and some people should not be allowed to own them.

 

zero is acceptable. But obviously unreachable in the US, so a massive reduction should be the aim. Any ideas? you are concerned right? by the number of kiddies deaths yes?

 

Not suggesting we should stop trying to protect children; just suggesting that maybe our priorities are misplaced. I realize we have the ability to work on many issues at once but if protecting our children during the school day is the goal then we should be more worried about those being abducted. This school shooting issue gets the same treatment as an airplane crashing. Air travel is safer than highway travel. More people die every year in auto accidents than in plane crashes. But as soon as a plane goes down the media is all over it telling how tragic it is that 150 people died. While very sad that number is no where near the number who die on US highways annually. It is not the number of deaths specifically but the number at one time. A father or mother or child who dies in a plane crash is no more or less tragic than if all three died in a car crash. School shootings are very similar in that regard. Weekly children are being abducted while traveling to or from school. That is tragic to the family but barely makes the news, might not make the news outside of the local area where it happened. But have some crazy person, who should not have been allowed to walk the streets much less have access to a gun, shoot a dozen kids and the media pounces on it. The nation mourns and the President feels compelled to say something. Where was the nation, where was the media, where was the President when that single child was grabbed?

 

You make an excellent point. I dips my hat in how you put that point.

I do however believe that car crash deaths- that is ongoing and improvements to safety has been ongoing for decades. Removing the main causes from better brakes, seat belts to airbags and crumble zones. Radical ongoing change.

Abductions- prevention measures eg not letting a child walk to and from school is about all one can do. Eg take away that possibility of abduction. Radical changes by parents. Telling a child not to enter a strangers car doesn't cut it.

But where is the radical movement of gun control? So little will change. Radical change is needed. Over 37,000 deaths by gun in 2016 only topped by Brazil is not a proud figure. So if it is proven that psychological tests, permits much harder to obtain and gun security were enhanced - would reduce gun deaths markedly why wouldn't pro gun owners want that? Yes, I'm going to get the "right to bare arms" comment by some....look beyond that.

 

Thank you.

We have systems in place now that are not working. While this is mainly due to human error; all we are is human. The Texas church shooter had committed crimes while in the military but the Air Force failed to pass that info along to the FBI. Cruz, who killed 17 at Douglas HS in Florida had given all kinds of signs but no one, including the FBI, did anything until too late, The Sandy Hook killer had mental issues his family was aware of yet his mother kept guns to which he had access. We can't ask her about it, she is dead. The Fort Hood shooter had shown signs and nothing was done. Anyway you get the idea.

It is hard to look to radical change when we have not enforced the laws we have; when we have not heeded the warning signs; when we have ignored the clues.

We do have many gun deaths in the US; too many. But again we need to look to the reasons; the causes. Approximately 2/3 of all gun deaths are suicides. While tragic and possibly with the same root cause as mass shootings they are very different. Of the remaining 1/3 of gun deaths, a large portion, well over 50% and likely much higher are due to gang violence and drugs. Many of these deaths are young men between 18-30.

Another reason we have so many gun deaths is, obviously, because we have so many guns. "Common sense" says if you have no guns you have no gun deaths. Common sense also says if you have no cars no one dies in a car crash. You mention the old "right to keep and bear arms" issue and as you are well aware it is a big issue here. All nations are unique, the US is uniquely different Our founding principles, our Constitution seem to set us apart.

Of course now is the point in the conversation where tyranny enters the discussion. While some will call it just plain crazy and other cliché, it is still something many citizens take seriously. I won't insult you with additional commentary on the prevention of tyranny or defense against invasion.

Anyway, just a few rambling thoughts.

Rich

 

Well, you have enlightened me on the lavk of enforcement of already existing laws.
That at least gives me more hope than I had because change is easier when the foundation is in place. Enforcement will come, a matter of time. Some states obviously will take longer than others.
Tony

 

We can talk about all the problems we want with the mentally ill, criminals and others out on the streets, but the bottom line is this. For decades, there was and is an open conduit for any one to but a gun from a legal purchaser. The vast majority of guns in the hands of people who should not have them go throw legal purchases.

The NRA has worked for decades on the part of gun makers to keep this lucrative avenue open. The United States helps keep gun makers from overseas in business they could not normally be selling in their own country. Gun makers make huge profits in the drug trade as guns flow out of this country accross our borders in exchange for drugs.

The biggest scourge of gun violence in Latino countries comes from the use of American made and distributed firearms. If you want a reason why drugs are so plentiful here, it’s in large part due to the efforts of gun makers and the NRA.
https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...rate-in-mexico-and-fuel-drug-violence/241387/

 

“The U.S. is fueling a war on its own border through its unwillingness to consider reasonable gun control. Our short-term desire for access to arms is coming at long-term expenses to stability and security. As long as drug cartels are able to acquire military-style weapons cheaply and easily in the United States, the ATF's efforts to prevent gun trafficking and the Mexican army's efforts to capture firearms will have little real impact. Without a concerted effort to curtail the flow of guns to Mexico, American firearms will continue to turn up next to bodies on both sides of the border.”

In the eyes of the NRA, slaughtered kids on the school ground are an unfortunate but necessary by product for the profit making eneterprise of gun distribution in a culture of corruption. They even go so far as to collude with Russians to fund donations to law makes to do their bidding.

 

Criminals don’t even need to have legal buyers break the law to supply them with weapons. Everything is legal til the gun gets to their hands in a manner that’s completely legal. Only their possession is illegal. Because of this, there is no accountability and straw purchases run rampart in the conduit from gun makers to legal purchases to the hands of criminals. The existing gun laws are a facade. Every AR15 or high cap pistol amoung others are potentially easily attainable weapons by criminals. Like wise, the stacks of .223 ball and 9mm and sold cheaply becomes a just as lucrative a commodity for dealers and manufacturers going to criminals and accross out borders to the drug cartels.

 

If only the amount of zero is acceptable, such would ultimately mean that any other amount must be classified as being unacceptable. Therefore, no matter what firearm-related restrictions are attempted on the part of the united states, the annual number of firearm-related deaths will always remain unacceptably high, no matter what reduction might be achieved. Therefore there is no legitimate point in even trying, as failure will ultimately be the only available option.

 

If one death is too many, then the only acceptable goal is zero. I don't know if you had any study in process capability, but the tail of the Bell curve for 100% capable process is infinitely long. No business strives for perfect, as the costs would truly be infinite.

I'm sure you have reasoning behind not allowing some guns to be owned, but it's likely not supported by statistics or the law. Some people are already not allowed to own guns. 18 USC 922g lists the types of people prohibited by law.

Do you wish to follow the Constitution and due process to make changes, or are you willing to allow government new power to ignore the Constitution and due process to save lives?

 

The gun death rate should be comparable to other developed countries......not 25 times higher

 

Gun advocates live in a dream world designed by the NRA.