<p>And of course we can always look to the resounding success of our drug control laws as a model on how we would outlaw guns, or try to regulate them more effectively.</p>
<p>Isn’t it fun how attempts to regulate and control just lead to more crime? Gotta love it.</p>
<p>New Hope, gun buy backs seem to be quite successful.</p>
<p>How would insurance requirements work? </p>
<p>That question was discussed several times earlier on this thread.</p>
<p>Bermuda</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Crime</a> in Bermuda | Bermuda Editorials](<a href=“http://www.royalgazette.com/article/20120907/COMMENT01/709079995]Crime”>http://www.royalgazette.com/article/20120907/COMMENT01/709079995)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You try to make sure bad guys don’t have guns. You try to find the root causes of why they turn to crime. You keep them locked up when they commit crimes. You get the illegal guns off the street whenever possible (for poor offenders, buy-backs might work). And because you can’t know who is going to be a “one and done” bad guy (like most of the mass shooters have been–I am not sure any had a criminal history), you make sure people have strong disincentives to leave guns around potentially unstable people. You monitor sudden large sales of ammunition. You encourage people to report “odd” behavior and threats. You talk people off the ledge when they start with the crazy conspiracy theories. I would include a moral component as well–that the purveyors of violent video games and movies have helped create a culture that is numb to violence and not outraged enough when it happens. I hope they feel at least a tinge of guilt about their role in all of this.</p>
<p>My sense is that Bermuda is also really big on racial equality . . . ha ha!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you really going to make me go back through 29 pages and look for it?? All I remember is that someone said insurance should be required for gun ownership. I don’t remember any discussion about how it would actually work. Can you nutshell it for me, please? I am sincere in my interest.</p>
<p>I understand, emilybee. But I am hopeful that common sense will prevail in time. Right now it seems like we are in the middle of a giant national tantrum as those who are resistant to change (a black president! gay marriage! they want to turn us into Europe!) lash out. But this too, will pass…with any luck.</p>
<p>07Dad, </p>
<p>What is the murder rate in Bermuda compared to the murder rate in the US?</p>
<p>NewHope, thank you for post 400.</p>
<p>So sally, after we have accomplished all of those thing (do you have a timeline estimate?), what do we do if a bad guy gets a gun, anyway? How do we stop him from killing?</p>
<p>Well, the Patriots have just finished wupp’n the Texans … guess that shows who the REAL tough guys are. (jk!)</p>
<p>I’m going to take one last crack at this, then bid all you good folks adieu. Mass-shootings occur where populations are dense. Most of America is not densely populated. Many (if not most) persons living in those less-densely populated areas are not having problems with weapon abuse. Shooting feral pigs in Texas is completely unrelated to shooting movie patrons in Aurora. Please give some consideration to those law-abiding red state citizens who believe it’s inappropriate to restrict their access to no-problem guns when it’s all too obvious that blue states can’t enforce gun restrictions already on the books. JMHO of course.</p>
<p>Of course, we shoot any non-gun owner or dissenter of opinions on sight in red states. </p>
<p>I myself have been shot dead so many times I must be a vampire.</p>
<p>I do agree with sewhappy about urban settings where most people getting killed might belong to the BLUE demographic. It is such a shame that they are labeled gangbanger disposable group.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If private citizens are not to be allowed semi-automatic weapons what do you suggest they be allowed to own? only revolvers? The vast majority of handguns sold in the US are semi-automatic.
Limit a magazine to 10 rounds? Not all that hard to carry more then one magazine nor change them quickly.</p>
<p>Bay, re: your last comment directed at me–I was directly addressing comments made on this thread, not who says what anywhere, anytime. And further than that, I have no wish to engage on this.</p>
<p>Bay, of course I don’t have a timeline, and of course we can’t stop all gun deaths. We will never have a gun-free society–which is partly why some of us fantasize about moving to places that have fewer of them.</p>
<p>NewHope, I would not consider Newtown “densely populated.” And few people here have a problem with rural gun owners who have guns to shoot feral pigs or coyotes or just to feel safer when they live in places where “no one will hear you if you scream.” Nor do most of us have any problem with responsible urban or suburban gun owners.</p>
<p>As a little aside, here in Wisconsin our legislature recently passed open-carry laws–but they still ban guns inside the Capitol. Hmmm. Clearly, even those who don’t worry about gun violence…worry about gun violence.</p>
<p>After this, I’m done too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ok, but if we can stop a bad guy with a gun, with a good guy with a gun, shouldn’t we do it?</p>
<p>Bay, sorry about the overly quick answer about how gun insurance would work. I’m no longer sure exactly where on this thread it was discussed, either. :)</p>
<p>There is a good editorial on the subject if you google “Requiring insurance could help curb gun violence” It was in the Boston Globe.</p>
<p>I appreciate the posters addressing my question about why anyone needs to own weaponry like that used in recent mass shootings, and why any private citizens need 30 round magazines/clips. Keep talking to me. I still don’t get it. I understand why some people might <em>want</em> such weapons, I just don’t understand why any citizen <em>needs</em> them. </p>
<p>The second ammendment, as it was most recently addressed by the Supreme Court, does not guarantee every citizen the right to every sort of gun that can be manufactured.</p>
<p>So what turns out to be kind of interesting, and probably one of the really problematic issues in a national conversation on gun laws, is that it is the dense urban areas which need gun laws, where there is nothing to hunt but people.</p>
<p>The problem then becomes the rest of the country, where guns are handled more or less responsibly, does not see it the same way because they are not in the same situation. So we will legislate from the urban centers (I’m from chicago and can promise these laws have been wildly ineffective here) for the rest of the country. </p>
<p>It’s understandable how someone not in an urban center, being dictated to by those they think don’t understand their way of life (words like hick, gun nut, etc… don’t help anyone in this situation) at all, would be leery of more laws from a place they may never even visit in their life in order to protect the people who are, in their opinions, bigotted against them.</p>
<p>Doesn’t sound too promising. We need to find a new way to talk to each other, I fear.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lucky for me it is not your call when and where I can carry. What makes you think I want to re-live some kind of OK Corral shoot out? I live in a state and area where open carry is legal and fairly common. Walking through the local Walmart I can usually count 5-10 people open carrying a gun. Who knows how many more are carrying concealed. </p>
<p>BTW you might want to find another coffee shop as Starbucks has refused to disallow gun carry in their stores. [Buy</a> latte, pack gun: Starbucks hit with boycott – and ‘buycott’ - latimes.com](<a href=“Archive blogs”>Buy latte, pack gun: Starbucks hit with boycott -- and 'buycott')</p>