Gabby Giffords Gun Violence Initiative

[bUU]

Well, not really since you won't share your reasoning. Maybe we should just call this a conclusion forum instead of a discussion forum. I guess it would make moderating a lot easier.

I was pretty sure I made my position clear: Semi-automatic weapons are not required for personal protection. Anonymity when buying bullets is not required for personal protection. 30-round magazine clips are not required for personal protection. Loaded guns are not required for personal protection in government buildings. Loaded guns are not required for personal protection in crowds. These things are simply not required for personal protection. You can protect yourself with a basic firearm, with a small number of bullets loaded; in your own home or vehicle. Government can provide sufficient protection within government buildings and within crowds.

[bae]

We each know each others' positions, at this point.

A join date of December 2012. 52 posts, most in public policy. A keen understanding of everyone else's positions. A well-chosen name.

[Alan]

Government can provide sufficient protection within government buildings and within crowds.

I think the rash of violence in government schools, crowded theaters and shopping centers belies that conclusion.

[bUU]

What is it about guns and gun control that make it such a heated topic?

I cannot project what these other folks may be inspired by, but some pro-gun people are motivated by the presumption that they deserve deference from society, and/or that they innately are owed the trappings of personal sovereignty.

I personally find guns terrifying and anyone who is so quick to jump in and aggressively defend them really gives me pause.

For me, it is only those who don't acknowledge that their access to guns should have any reasonable boundaries - i.e., that their access should be "well-regulated".

I also know that there are those who are very into guns that are stable - I really do believe this much - but the problem is - not everyone with a gun is.

And not every gun (magazine clip, bullet, etc.) is necessarily safe in every (stable) gun owner's hands.

Beyond what I have just posted, is it acceptable that there will most likely never be a civil resolution about this issue, either? Rob

I think it'll come down to the passage of time. The way things things work is that every time there is clear and compelling evidence that new controls are needed, the gun lobby does everything it possibly can to delay, derail, and deflect until they are "saved" by an ever-increasingly distracted public turning its attention to other issues.

A join date of December 2012. 52 posts, most in public policy. A keen understanding of everyone else's positions. A well-chosen name.

You've posted a pointlessly abusive posting about posting. Who's the puppet?

[Yossarian]

The way things things work is that every time there is clear and compelling evidence that new controls are needed

But there has never been a time when there was "clear and compelling evidence that new controls are needed", in my experience there have only been times when people get emotional or weigh in on subjects they don't really understand.

[bUU]

And I'm willing to agree to disagree about that with you.

Are you willing to accept that reasonable people disagree with you about that?

[gimmethesimplelife]

But there has never been a time when there was "clear and compelling evidence that new controls are needed", in my experience there have only been times when people get emotional or weigh in on subjects they don't really understand.

With all due respect, I am going to disagree with you.....Out of respect to the innocent schoolchildren in Connecticut, I disagree with you. These 20 children that recently lost their lives are ample reason - to me, anyway - that something needs to be done. We could discuss all day long what that something is, and I don't myself know what that will eventually look like, but to let 20 children die like that with nothing being done - is that an America that you wish to continue living in? For what purpose/reason if so? And what does that say about the US as a country if the majority disagrees with this? Food for thought. Rob

[Yossarian]

And I'm willing to agree to disagree about that with you.

Are you willing to accept that reasonable people disagree with you about that?

Well sure, but I would have to hear the reasoning before I could say whether any particular disagreement was reasonable or not.

[Midwest]

With all due respect, I am going to disagree with you.....Out of respect to the innocent schoolchildren in Connecticut, I disagree with you. These 20 children that recently lost their lives are ample reason - to me, anyway - that something needs to be done. We could discuss all day long what that something is, and I don't myself know what that will eventually look like, but to let 20 children die like that with nothing being done - is that an America that you wish to continue living in? For what purpose/reason if so? And what does that say about the US as a country if the majority disagrees with this? Food for thought. Rob

I agree with you that something needs to be done. What happened to those children, Giffords, the people in Colorado, and many others is horrible.

Respectfully, however, I disagree with many that the something is an assault weapson ban, a semi-auto ban, registration, ammo purchase restrictions etc.

The truth is, there are so many weapons in this country that bans are ineffective. There have been numerous shootings in New York, Connecticut, Chicago, California and Dc. All of which have bans and draconian gun laws for the common person. The truth is, bans don't work and criminals don't obey them anyway.

Registration (as proven by recent events in New York), poses another set of problems.

Since I'm posting about what won't work, let me suggest something that might at least start things down the right direction. I don't support registration in any way shape or form. I wouldn't, however, be opposed to a system that allows me (via some anonomous mechanism) to do a background check on a private party sale and prove that has happened to prevent guns getting in the hands of the wrong people. That would close the "gun show loophole" without many of the negatives I see to requiring registration.

[Yossarian]

but to let 20 children die like that with nothing being done - is that an America that you wish to continue living in? For what purpose/reason if so?

I don't know Rob, what is it that you propose doing? It is appropriate to examine the options. But if the "solutions" don't fix the problem or make the problem worse, then yes, I would say doing nothing is better than making things worse.