Why not mandate trigger locks and locked gun cases?

Then name the rulings.

Surely it cannot be that difficult for yourself to actually do, that you would continually refuse to do anything but make the same flawed argument over and over again. Cite the rulings that were overturned, or drop the argument and recant the statement. It is that simple.

 

That's a new thing I hadn't heard before. In any case that makes it worse. Martin went out to track down a stranger who had accosted him and was roaming the neighborhood, Zimmerman murdered a teen protecting his family's home

 

That gun can be stolen, it is contributing to the problem. Besides, under my system you would only have to be examined annually and pay insurance, then you could shoot targets to your heart's content and be secure in the knowledge that you have paid some of your weapon's social costs as any responsible citizen should.

 

I already have, most of our gun laws and their present interpretations are moving in the direction of granting gun owners an almost unlimited right to kill people and then claim that person was attacking them, whether that fact can be proven or not.

You have a strange idea of how many firearms were in existence during WWII. By your own statements the problem is totally out of control and requiring totally draconian measures or our society will collapse. Fear not, though, I and societie's other sane members will save it.

Uh... I live in a society and in a society that society is able to address and solve problems that plague it. Go live in Somalia or Antarctica if you want to be as much of an individual as you think you must.

 

You jumped from "can" to "it is". Generally you don't progress from a "maybe" to a "firm conclusion" in an argument.

Under my system I don't have to be examined annually and pay insurance and the net result is the same except I end up with more money in my pocket and more time on my hands.

My weapon does not have any social costs. It just kinds of sits there until I pick it up.

 

Unless the conclusion is obvious

You could save a lot by not having a driver's license for your car and not having to have insurance on it.

Yeh, under your system WE pay all the social costs of your gun, no thanks, pay for your own toys.

Social costs are not obvious and are independent of the use of something

 

Any honest reasoned people would require proof of your claim - why don;t you?

 

Irrelevant. It's everywhere. Always has been always will be.

Oh, the melodrama.

See above.

When you can present something not based on fallacious appeals to emotion, be sure to let us know.

 

Nothing says "You know, I can't present a sound argument against what you just said" like the non-seq you just offered.
My work here is finished.

 

Except it is not an absolute condition. It is dependent on something which might happen.

Those are required bylaw.

Except there are no social costs for my weapons. Whether I keep my weapon or get rid of it, the cost to everyone else is the same..

You keep arguing as if everything is a foregone conclusion and it isn't.

 

If by "reasonable person" you mean "someone that does not require facts to support his statement", then sure.

 

A statement you know you cannot prove.

 

But how does your system prevent my gun from being stolen?

That being said...it’s going to be awfully hard to steal my gun from a gun safe that is bolted to the wall. What is the social cost you refer to that my weapon is somehow involved with? Has my weapon done something I’m not aware of? Do I need to punish my gun for acting up?

 

There was no accosting to be had. George Zimmerman never made physical of verbal contact with Trayvon Martin until the moment because the act of assault was committed. According to phone records of the event, Trayvon Martin had left the area before George Zimmerman ever got out of his vehicle to provide an address to the 911 dispatcher. There was no effort on the part of Trayvon Martin to protect his family, only to prove whatever it was he felt physically compelled to prove. And if reports are accurate that he assaulted a bus driver for the school, he was not interested in proving anything of a wholesome nature.

 

The school shooters are mainly taking anti-depressants, not anti-ADHD drugs.

 

They were still easy to get. Heck, the government is still selling M1 Carbines to people. (Semi-autos with available 30-round magazines).

 

Factually incorrect. There is no such effort underway in the united states.

It does not matter how many firearms may have been in existence in other countries over seventy years ago, those numbers are no longer current and valid. This is especially the case in the united states, where the number of privately owned firearms has only increased dramatically, never decreased. If current estimates are correct the united states now has more firearms than individuals to own them, the majority of which are unregistered and impossible to locate. No other country has had to contend with such figures.

Indeed it cannot. If such were indeed the case, the society of the united states would have gone about securing its borders against invasion by illegal aliens, or brought an end to the problem of homelessness, or even successfully had marijuana de-scheduled and made completely legal. But such has not been done. Such has not even come close to being done. Either society has no interest in such, or society is powerless to do anything about such.

Irrelevant and off topic.

 

Nikolas Cruz had been diagnosed with autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. He was being treated for depression, had a behavioral disorder and had been taking medication for the ADHD, the report said. Investigators wrote that they did not know whether he was still taking the medication. The one thing school shooters all seem to have in common is that they were diagnosed with psychiatric disorders and given psychiatric medications to treat it.
While typical ADHD responds positively to stimulants, OCD ADHD gets worse with stimulant use alone. Over focused ADHD causes an increase in negative symptoms such as anger, frustration and a tendency to argue.

 

So if I break into your home, steal your family heirlooms and your gun, and then I go out and I kill someone with your gun..... You go to prison? What country are you from again?

 

Okay then, so how about we throw the criminals Parents in prison for five years. It would give them something to think about in the bedroom, especially single Mothers.

 

Every gun owner I know maintains he should be able to legally kiil other people in self-defense, AND that the particular circumstances of any such killing should be his alone to determine at the time They don't want to be charged, they don't even want to go to court, They want "Kirisute Gomen" to "cut down and walk away" How much clearer can that be?

Guns may be very numerous but they are not grains of sand on a beach nor stars in the sky, They have been put here and they can be removed.

All those problems you mention can and will be solved once we acquire the will to do so. At present we don't have that will for a variety of reasons. That does not mean those problems are insoluble, simply that they are difficult, but Americans are people who rise to challenges, not submit to obstacles

 

You're a doctor now? What works on one kid may not work on another but NO kid can shoot people if he doesn't have a gun.

 

And I don't know any gun owner who believes that and I am sure I know a lot more gun owners than you. What we don't want is an automatic rush to judgement that we are guilty.

 

Every human being has the legal right to kill other people in self defense. It's a natural right. We do not want Kirisute Gomen.

 

Note the bolded part in the post being answered. I know many gun advocates who don't think they should even have to talk to a cop if they kill a mugger. And in the Zimmerman case that is close to what happened. He wasn't arrested until later and the area wasn't even secured which, since it was raining, made doubly sure that forensics would be unable to deny his story.