Hope that’s not like buying a used car.
Vlad, and what about the guns which were so effective at mowing down people at Umpqua, Sandy Hook, and all the other blood-soaked towns as someone said above? Should those be banned? They have no other purpose than mowing down people.
I would have no concerns about purchasing insurance if it were required. My guns were purchased 30 years ago, no checks required, but I would have no concerns about one if there had been, or if it were required retroactively today. See, I am a gun owner IN FAVOR of much stricter gun laws. I don’t define myself and my “adulthood” by owning guns – I can really take it or leave it. To reduce the number of gun deaths by all causes in the U.S., I am willing to be subject to any suggestion I have made so far on this thread… But you keep dodging the list I proposed in post #684.
I wrote the post without links of very specific reason. To specifically illustrate how this thread is really similar to a gossip column of people discussing what they personally want to believe and heard on the vine from other people, a lot which many let go by on this thread without supporting link.
Your asking for a link is really funny because when in the world did anyone on CC ever need a link to refute a statement? A source link is not necessary for anyone to simply prove I am wrong by posting his own source link showing / proving I am wrong.
In stark contrast, I note that you did not ask Cfang for her link about why she doubts my number. She just says she finds them suspect for reasons she says exists? Based on what? Her dinner table beliefs? Anecdotal evidence she picked up at a party? Alas, it is a good thing that her beliefs are nothing that the policymakers and the government can use as useful in policy-making because they cannot go on what people want to believe is the case.
And what about asking inparent for the link of that 7,000 injury number cited? I see no asking for a source link there. Gees, someone even said they found it “helpful” without even asking for a link to back it up.
That is gossip column behavior. This just accepting something without supporting info, as helpful, just because it fit your bias. However, this same cabal demands my numbers must have links and sources - people’s biases are showing in bright red. I guess when other’s views support your bias, no supporting source link needed; you just roll with it.
And this explains exactly why it is so difficult to get gun control votes in Congress; policymakers cannot craft laws based on people’s personal beliefs and anecdotes. They develop policy based on what has been analyzed and documented as scientifically as possible, from multiple sources.
Additionally, gun control advocates cannot just say they do not believe a number in a study; they have to refute using the same or higher level of analysis showing why the number is wrong. And, unfortunately for gun control advocates, the evidence is steadily going the other way.
OK, back to my post. As I said, I wrote the post with sub-headers so that those who doubt the numbers could take the 10 seconds to:
Let me google that for you:
From the search above:
So, it looks like my memory was within 7,000 of what the largest rape and abuse organization reports. You may want to all your office because these people ere seen as leaders in this sat area by congress people, so congress is listening to them, not what you think.
From the search above:
https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm
The above fact sheet is exhaustively sourced, so knock yourself out.
Again, my memory was not far off, within 10,000. However, I believe the 200,000 is a 20-year old number, so it is must be way north of 200,000 now anyway just based on population growth AND the some 5-fold increase of women who carry guns on their person or have them in their homes.
- And as for inparent's post of 7,000 kid injuries rom guns each year - this is correct. Please note that I did not need a source link to find out in under 15 seconds.
- Cfang, thanks for the catching that. I did mean to write accidental child deaths, not shootings.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/25/us-accidental-gun-deaths-100-children-yearly
I am not going to waste anymore time, as my numbers are holding up, even if one of my sub-headers had an error.
However, though, the child injury argument is a non-starter in case the gun control advocates have not inured that out yet. I will address in a different post the essential problem that gun control advocates are having in thinking that using the deaths and injuries of children, as some advantageous point in the discussion.
The answer is rather very simple why “children” do not work to move the ball in the direction of more gun control. It lies in the fact that public officials have to use a larger calculus and cause and effect analysis in making policy, something which people in favor of extreme gun control do not do and do not take the responsibility of doing, and thus are blinded to the limits of their arguments.
The calculus they make is whether they want to incur the wrath of the NRA. Which is just wrong.
Because that what they do.
Hey, let’s name-call and etc. without providing anything of substance in return, Schoolyard stuff.
And this why many in congress and state-elected officials do not take them seriously. I have been in meetings, as a private citizen, and this is exactly how the gun control nuts respond to over half the questions posed at them. After about the third same non-answer, you can see the officials who would like gun control just hang their heads because it is impossible to make policy when nothing is constructive in an argument.
aw,
Please. A gossip column? Sounds like a sexist remark.
No, I don’t support banning ubiquitous semiauto pistols (or rifles).
It is not as simple as you think when it involves a family because it is illegal to penalize a person who has not committed a crime just because someone he is related to committed a crime.
I speak for my area in that breathlyzers can only be installed on vehicles wholly-owned by the offender. They cannot be installed on a group or family vehicles simply because then the state is forcing innocent people to submit to a breathalyzer test to use their vehicles. And since these other family members have not been convicted of the crime of drunk driving then it is illegal to force them to do that.
And this is why the vast majority of drunk drivers live in houses where there are multiple cars owned by other family members, which means the drunk driver, unfortunately, can criminally take a car and drive when no one is looking. Or even when others are looking, as it is not the family members’ job to stop / police the behavior of another autonomous adult. Should they report them, sure, but easier said than done, as it is family.
Additionally, doing such family penalties would actually raise the societal cost via increased incarceration because if family members were penalized for the crimes of relatives, family members who be reluctant to take them back, thereby, taking away a vital support mechanism that aids in transitioning back to society. If the family is taken out of the mix, much more felons would be on their own and that increases the return to crime.
This is similar to why a released convict who was in jail for killing someone with a gun can live in a house with family members who themselves lawfully own guns and who have their own CCPs. Cannot penalize innocent people for the crime of another just because you eat at the same dinner table.
Same reason why someone convicted of stabbing three people to death can get out on parole and go live with his parents who own a knife museum and who have knives all over their house. Cannot penalize the parents for the actions of the child by taking their knives away.
Overall, it does not take much of a leap in logic to understand why this is the case - it is not the instruments, which got up and killed others on their own; it is one specific human criminal who killed. Pretty stupid to blame /penalize others or an inanimate object for killing someone when it cannot move or act on its own.
NOTE: My breathalyzer example above was from a few years ago, but I doubt this has changed, as it makes no constitutional sense to penalize innocent people.
Well, it would become a crime to allow access to your firearms to anyone under the age of 13. The punishment for that would be loss of firearms until there is no one under 18 living in your household. I wouldn’t suggest making it a crime to have a relative who has a DUI.
I’m not trying to argue that this is the best idea or policy, but I was asked for an idea, and that’s an idea that sounds a hell of a lot more reasonable than ban all handguns.
You all need to get your arguments straight.
So, there are millions of guns in the hands of gun nuts, which are effective in mowing down people. OK, I got that and agree that is true.
But, then in the same thread, it is incredulous for those exact guns to be used to mow down an invading enemy military, which, ironically, are also composed of PEOPLE? Exactly when did these guns become ineffective? When the other people just happen to have the term military attached to them? Wow, the term “military” is much more powerful than I ever thought for it makes once effective guns ineffective.
I am very aware what you are doing and your approach.
In return, I am just providing opposing positions of what are potential sticking points, some of which have been tested legally already.
I appreciate the fact that instead of ad Hominem stuff you are truly thinking through this stuff, and trying to ferret out potential policies from the responses on the thread.
The difficulty here, and why I think this would not go too far as such a blanket policy, would be the need to show intent and willful negligence were the reasons for the access.
Let’s say that a parent gun-owner with a 10 or 12 year-old simply forgot to lock his safe or was in a hurry to pick the wife (or husband) and forget that there were two guns out instead of one, and then the 12 year-old takes the gun and accidentally shots himself or someone. Tough situation all around, as it was human error.
The gun owner, I bet, in 95% or higher of such cases would not be charged. Much in the same way, a parent who runs over his kid while backing up (I believe @rhandco gave this example earlier) would not be charged with vehicular homicide based on the failure to physically look back before backing up.
On a finer point, I am all for gun safes and such, but I do quibble with the age thing.
I personally know several kids, under age 13, who had strangers walking around their houses (lucky never entered), but those kids were home alone after school, BUT, a very big BUT, they were trained and had access to a gun and did exactly as they were trained to do - had the gun ready and loaded and were in the place their parents taught them to go and be ready in such an event. (Yes, they did call police, but with a 10-15 minute wait being average in our area, not a useful option).
Basically, I cannot for the life of me think those kids should not have the opportunity to defend themselves, just because they were under 13.
Therefore, I would amend your policy to allow exceptions for kids under 13 who are trained and certified by their parents to handle a weapon for that kids own personal defense, and, of course, rifle use for hunting.
Anyone who makes an assertion based on statistics should provide a link to those stats. It shouldn’t be up to the reader to have to do research to either prove or disprove them. Geez.
Nope. I would happily follow the law if it is enacted. You are making the assumption that somehow everyone without it becomes an outlaw in one day if the law is enacted. Duh. No. There would obviously be a period to allow insurance companies to bring offerings to the market to match the regulation.
@awcntdb you actually know people who give their children under age 13 unsupervized access to loaded guns? I find that incredible! I also find it incredibly irresponsible no matter how “well trained” those children are.
What are you talking about?
That was as garden variety as gun as you can get. It was a basic semi-automatic that is no more effective at killing than a gun from the 1880’s wild west. The real issue was the killer just happened to shooting at point blank range.
This I what I mean re gossip. This myth and narrative that the gun was somehow built specifically to be more effective at killing people.
Truth be told, the gun used in OR is probably less effective than a 1880’s revolver since the revolver is not prone to jamming, but a modern day semi-auto pistol is. That is why many police carry a back-up revolver because you would be amazed how many times their standard semi-auto jams on them.
Sure, but losing your access to firearms is not a grave punishment. I’m not suggesting prison time. Just loss of access to firearms. I don’t think it’s crazy to expect that gun owners ensure that they keep their firearms out of the hands of children (or at least unsupervised access), and if they can’t do it, then they lose their right for as long as there’s a threat that another similar accident could happen.
A “garden variety” gun? Thats a pretty cavalier attitude towards a lethal weapon. They all kill. Some are just more efficient and more reliable than others. Lovely.
The 11 yr old who killed the 8 yr old – the gun was kept in an unlocked closet by his Responsible Gun Owner father.
Thanks again for the clarification. This thread got so long and covered so much ground that I conflated that this was part of the “decades in prison” thing that a poster mentioned, a few other poster backed.
My only issue here is that it sounds like the “no tolerance” programs in schools that have proved a disaster in many respects. There needs to be room for when true human error occurs. In short, there needs to discretion given to the circumstances leading to the breach.
Question: I would like to know what you would recommend as the “effective defense” alternative for the example I gave of the kids I know who could effectively defend themselves from harm if the intruders had actually entered their houses - the kids had a huge fighting chance of coming out unharmed because each had a gun and were taught how to defend themselves. Keep in mind, the average police arrival time in the area is 10 - 15 minutes, and 2X as long in bad weather.
(Full disclosure - one of these cases above involved my own DS and my house when he was younger, so I know of what I speak.)