Gun Control

[Gameface]

To be clear, when I said "certain classes of people", I meant former felons, those in mental health databases, etc. I don't know if your answer would be different in that context.

Outside of that, thank you for your answers.

I favor restricting gun rights from people who have proven to be violent. I do fear however that such restrictions could be widened to the point that gun rights become a privilege for a select group who has obeyed increasingly oppressive laws and that minor infractions, even ones where no criminal conviction was achieved, would result in a loss of gun rights.

Consider this. The current "war on drugs" has essentially been selectively waged against people in poor neighborhoods and even then overwhelmingly targeted at minorities. It's one of the most despicable realities we tolerate, encourage even. Within that established framework gun rights by and large could be stripped from minority communities. Many, even many who favor gun rights for good ol' law abiding Americans, would see massive restrictions on gun ownership targeted at poor minorities in the inner-cities as a good thing. I see gun ownership, or gun rights at least, as an enfranchising factor. When I am free to own powerful weapons it is clear that I'm not seen as the enemy. It is clear that I and the government are on the same team. To strip gun rights from minorities in the inner city it would just further drive a wedge between black and white America.

 

[Stoked]

I agree that it is a very slippery slope GF. It could easily be widened to anyone on any type of meds for depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive...

It would need to be worded in a very clear, very hard to change way.

 

[One Brow]

There already are laws about improper use of firearms. What you are asking for already exists.

There are laws about what people can do during an assembly, and yet we still enact reasonable prior restrictions about where the assembly can happen, when, etc.

Also, I don't recall asking for any specific thing in this thread, except to find ways to reduce the number of bullets a shooter can send out in a killing rampage. What laws do that?

 

[One Brow]

To strip gun rights from minorities in the inner city it would just further drive a wedge between black and white America.

I agree, even while noting that those inner-city minorities are often the loudest voices for gun control. For example, it was a Washington, D.C. law that was thrown out in 2008. For those minorities, guns are a sign of lawlessness, not good standing with the government. Still, I agree that selectively targeting them would objectionable.

 

[Stoked]

There are laws about what people can do during an assembly, and yet we still enact reasonable prior restrictions about where the assembly can happen, when, etc.

Also, I don't recall asking for any specific thing in this thread, except to find ways to reduce the number of bullets a shooter can send out in a killing rampage. What laws do that?

You can't reduce it. They have already shown they don't give a damn about your laws.

There are already laws about how and where you can carry. Using a firearm increases your crime, punishment and opens you to additional crimes. Not my fault you wanted to ignore the specifics that already address what you are Bradley asking about.

 

[franklin]

Why are AR15's 'personal defense' weapons for the Department of Homeland Security but 'assault rifles' for citizens?

Same reason nuclear capabilities are considered weapons of mass destruction when in the hands of psychopaths.

I'm not sure how much of my disdain is based on fear, and how much on perceived lack of necessity. A hunting trip would probably ease the former, but not the latter. The one time I went fishing I was bored out of my mind.

I haven't seen any statistics that indicate people who own guns are more likely to have harm averted by the guns they own than they are to have harm inflicted by the guns they own; the usual claim is that you are more likely to be harmed by gun in your house than to keep harm averted. I believe in the ability to protect yourself, but prefer to find ways that place yourself less at risk. Sometimes you need to ingest poison as a medical treatment, but those times are rare.

Statistics do nothing for the individual about to get raped and family murdered. You're also falsely correlating [lack of] necessity with a risk:reward calculation (that may or may not be accounting for increased benefit/lack of downside risk in the absense of ownership).

As to the second, I'm surprised you're not an advocate of better education for gun owners as a solution to your problem. Shouldn't education be the first step taken?

 

[Gameface]

As to the second, I'm surprised you're not an advocate of better education for gun owners as a solution to your problem. Shouldn't education be the first step taken?

I wonder why gun safety class isn't called for here. I don't hear the advocates of gun regulation expressing an interest in requiring students to go through a gun familiarization and safety course, demonstrating safe handling, precautions, proper storage, and regulations. Education is they key, is it not?

 

[fishonjazz]

I wonder why gun safety class isn't called for here. I don't hear the advocates of gun regulation expressing an interest in requiring students to go through a gun familiarization and safety course, demonstrating safe handling, precautions, proper storage, and regulations. Education is they key, is it not?

I agree with this.
i had a hunter education/gun safety course when i was like 12 for about an hour and that was the last time.
My knowledge all comes from my dad and brothers and hunting with them

 

[Scat]

Same reason nuclear capabilities are considered weapons of mass destruction when in the hands of psychopaths.

So you're saying that all private citizens are psychopaths?

 

[One Brow]

You can't reduce it. They have already shown they don't give a damn about your laws.

There are already laws about how and where you can carry. Using a firearm increases your crime, punishment and opens you to additional crimes. Not my fault you wanted to ignore the specifics that already address what you are Bradley asking about.

Changing what is available will gradually change what is available to criminals, as well, whether they care about the laws or not. So, your blanket proclamation of an inability to reduce the number of bullets is false.

Changing the severity of a law means little to most mass shooters, from what I can tell. The death penalty carries no threat to the suicidal. So, I see no prospect for saying that "using a firearm increases severity of your crime" to have any deterrent effect, nor any ameliorative effect. Thus, I don't see where it addresses what I am asking about. I don't pretend to speak for Bradley on that.

 

[One Brow]

Statistics do nothing for the individual about to get raped and family murdered.

They don't do anything for the parent whose kid just shot themself. They don't do anything for the spouse being shot by an abuser. The don't do anything for the homeowner whose gun is found by a thief and turned on the homeowner. Yet, at the very least, the first two are much more common than the scenario you devise.

You're also falsely correlating [lack of] necessity with a risk:reward calculation (that may or may not be accounting for increased benefit/lack of downside risk in the absense of ownership).

I agree I conflated the two concepts.

As to the second, I'm surprised you're not an advocate of better education for gun owners as a solution to your problem. Shouldn't education be the first step taken?

I don't have a problem as an individual (on this topic); our country has a problem.

I am in favor of more education. I've said before that there should be gun-carry licenses that are much like driver's licenses (you need to show some basic knowledge, some handling ability, perhaps even carry insurance). However, with regard to these mass shootings in particular, I don't recall anyone claiming that they happened because the shooter just didn't know enough about guns.

 

[One Brow]

I wonder why gun safety class isn't called for here.

How would such classes have limited the loss of life in Newtown or Aurora?

I think the discussion of having every high school offering gun safety classes similar to driver's licenses classes is worth having. However, I don't see how that helps here (that is, in the context of this particular discussion).