Here's where the gun debate should go!

[Gregg]

We seem to have two polarities on the topic.............Are you proposing that the existing state is good, and/or what would you call refining of our present course?

Sorry so long, lots to talk about... I'm actually thinking the existing state is NOT good and I really am trying to figure out how to 'refine' the way we go about gun ownership in the US to improve the situation. From what I'm reading the polarity more reflects emotions more than actual events. A madman just committed an unthinkable crime and people are scared. I'm scared. My 16 yo daughter was at the midnight premier of the same movie on the same night here in my hometown. What happened in Aurora could have just as easily happened here. It is perfectly natural for emotions to run high.

I'm scared, but I'm not paralyzed by that fear and I'm not willing to radically overcompensate in the hope that it helps. I'm trying to logically figure out what is really happening so I can support the course of action that most accurately reflects my values. Here's what I know so far...

I know crimes committed using illegal guns out number those committed using legal guns by a factor of almost 30. That tells me our real problem lies with illegal guns.

I have known hundreds, if not thousands, of gun owners in my life, most of whom own multiple guns. To the very best of my knowledge every one of their guns are legal and not one of them has ever used a gun of any kind to commit a crime. That's non-scientific, but valid because we all rely on our own experience to decide what to do. It further reinforces my conclusion that our real problem is with illegal guns.

I know we have several hundred laws on the books that seek to limit the sales of guns to anyone with less than stellar intent. Analyzing it purely by the numbers there have only been a handful of Aurora type crimes committed in a country of some 315,000,000 people. That tells me the laws ARE working in almost every case, but that handful of events is still unacceptable.

I know James Holmes was able to legally purchase his guns, even with a background check, because he did not have a criminal record and (apparently) did not have a medical history that disqualified him. That tells me we should be looking for more effective methods of screening before guns are sold, but I can't tell you what those might be.

I know there are crazy and sick people in this world who will harm other people, often innocent people, and there is nothing that we can do that will stop all of them. That tells me that as comforting as it might be, I am not in denial.

I know that if denied one method of inflicting harm those crazy and sick people will often find another method that is just as effective, if not more so. That tells me we need to find a different, more interacitve approach to identify people who would do things like this.

I know I would give blood, pee in a cup, let them trim my hair for DNA or whatever if that was part of an effective screening process. I also know most gun owners would do the same thing if they thought there was a chance it would prevent future atrocities. But I also know it probably would, at best, only cause the people who commit such acts to move on to a different plan (see above).

Is there anything there that you disagree with? Are we getting closer to finding common ground?

[Rogar]

Greg, Our governor, who I consider a wise man, has basically said the same thing. That it is people, not guns, that commit the crimes and that tightening gun laws is not the answer. He said that without access to guns, they would find a way. I disagree, but not to a huge degree. There is something about a gun crime such as the mass slayings we've seen that in some twisted fashion gives the perpetrator satisfaction by being there in person and is also romanticized by the media. Opinion, but probably valid. There is also the fact that certain guns are capable of inflicting more and faster damage than others and have some favor by mass murders.

What I favor would be things that would not be especially burdensome or limiting to people wanting to protect home and family, but at the same time just "might" prevent other violence. If these have just a calculated and decent chance of preventing loss of life, would it be worth it? Would it slow down a potential criminal and give him more time to think, put a few hurdles in the way, or catch a mentally unstable person? I would include on a list of things to consider, a reinstatement of the assault weapon ban that expired in 2004, a requirement for a background check on private gun sales including gun shows, limits on high capacity magazines and clips, elimination or limits of large quantity orders for ammunition on the internet, a requirement for states to report mentally unstable to the national network that handles background checks (I think this is currently voluntary and is mentioned as a gap in the Virginia Tech incident), and a requirement for gun owners to report lost or stolen guns. Several of these appear in some form or another on the Mayors Against Illegal Guns platform. I'm sure you can poke holes in a few of these.

I have gun toting friends myself. A couple own semi-auto assault style weapons purchased in a panic before they were banned way back when. I own guns for home defense and hunting. Not everyone would be happy with these changes, but I think the common citizen who isn't paranoid about a zombie attack would not be burdened or infringed upon by these.

In spite of some of the opinions here wanting tighter restrictions, and it is interesting to hear opinions, most of it just isn't going to happen. National politicians don't want to raise the ire of the NRA lobby, especially before elections, and however many might want tight restrictions, the American democratic public majority is not likely to favor much more. There are some deeper social issues that need to be addressed.

[Alan]

"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of it's own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." ~ Col Jeff Cooper The Art Of The Rifle

[Rogar]

"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of it's own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." ~ Col Jeff Cooper The Art Of The Rifle

The most important means of surviving a lethal confrontation, according to Cooper, is neither the weapon nor the martial skills. The primary tool is the combat mindset, set forth in his book, Principles of Personal Defense.

[DocHolliday]

I absolutely agree with the gun control measures you set out. There needs to be national standards, across every state, every gun show and every purchase from Walmart to private sales. Here's where it gets sticky. There aren't standards. Some states have strict controls while others have practically no controls.

Why exactly do we need "national standards"? 29 out of the 50 States had 5 or fewer murders by rifles of all kinds in 2010, 18 of those States had either 1 or 0 murders by rifle:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...es/10tbl20.xls

We already have the usual suspects in Congress wanting to ban assault rifles nationwide, even though in the vast majority of the country murder by rifle is incredibly rare.

[DocHolliday]

34 people are killed with guns every single day in America.

30 people are killed every single day in America by drunk drivers. Have Menino, Bloomberg, and the other "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" expressed any concern about those folks? Called for bans on booze...background checks for alcohol sales...taken any money from breweries?

[Rogar]

30 people are killed every single day in America by drunk drivers. Have Menino, Bloomberg, and the other "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" expressed any concern about those folks? Called for bans on booze...background checks for alcohol sales...taken any money from breweries?

[/LEFT]

No, that was Mother's against Drunk Drivers. I believe the strict laws on driving while intoxicated have had a significant effect in reducing alcohol related fatalities.

[peggy]

30 people are killed every single day in America by drunk drivers. Have Menino, Bloomberg, and the other "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" expressed any concern about those folks? Called for bans on booze...background checks for alcohol sales...taken any money from breweries?

[/LEFT]

yes, I'm sure these mayors have expressed concern about drunk drivers. Are you under the impression that folks haven't expressed concern for drunk driving? Across the board? And what cave have you been in for the last, oh, 20 years or so? In fact, even makers of alcohol have expressed concern, wanting strict controls themselves to keep their legal product safe for users. Unlike the NRA, who apparently want to allow anyone, anywhere to pack heat, the makers of alcohol actually show some responsibility to the nation that affords them the freedom to produce their product.
I'm guessing these mayors, with the support of alcohol makers, AREN'T pushing for legislation to get alcohol into more hands with fewer restrictions, unlike the NRA. Comparing alcohol to guns is just a dumb comparison. It's apples to small white labratory animals.

[peggy]

Why exactly do we need "national standards"? 29 out of the 50 States had 5 or fewer murders by rifles of all kinds in 2010, 18 of those States had either 1 or 0 murders by rifle:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...es/10tbl20.xls

We already have the usual suspects in Congress wanting to ban assault rifles nationwide, even though in the vast majority of the country murder by rifle is incredibly rare.

I know it is tiresome to read all the posts, but it just might be helpful if you intend to enter the conversation.
Cause if you had read even a few pages you would see we aren't just talking about rifles. We are covering the whole gambit from hunting shotguns to semi-automatic guns, handguns, and all. FYI

[creaker]

Quote Originally Posted by Rogar View Post
34 people are killed with guns every single day in America.

30 people are killed every single day in America by drunk drivers. Have Menino, Bloomberg, and the other "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" expressed any concern about those folks? Called for bans on booze...background checks for alcohol sales...taken any money from breweries?

[/LEFT]

Are these numbers correct? No judgements on any issues, just asking a statistical question. Am I more likely to be killed by someone with a gun than a drunk driver?