Gun Control Thread- Should we?

First I did address it and second look at post# 347,this is not a joke .There are 26 people dead 20 children some shot more then once by someone who's mother was part of out gun culture ,she would argue that she knew about gun safty and how to handle guns and it's the "other" idiots out there ,right up to the time her son shot her 4 times and killer her.No, you didn't. You just parroted what the desperate politician in LA said.

RR's joke does far less harm than your argument and what the paper's actions do.

And you are still ignoring that a buy back program would have done nothing to stop the Newtown massacre. It might actually help get other guns away from people desperate for money, but that has nothing to do with people with assault rifles. So you still aren't making sense. Just acting "feel good" rather than address problems stated in this thread, i guess.

Sure, legal permit owners and people willing to sell their guns are who we should go after and guilt trip. Rather than addressing problems with felons, the criminally/suicidally minded, and "glory seekers".

There's more of an "excuse the criminal" culture in this country, than a "gun culture". Unless you mean some other "gun culture" than legally owned guns for purposes other than killing people?

Firstdown already refuted your idea that the mother being part of some "gun culture" was the problem. Check out his post here (http://www.thewarpath.net/debating-with-the-enemy/48456-gun-control-thread-should-we-24.html#post979811).

My response to the gun buyback is... who cares. No one is forcing people to turn in their guns. No one is being pressured to turn in their guns. It's simply a service being offered. The type of crime we saw at Sandyhook can shatter the foundation for some people, and they may want to get rid of a gun in a secure fashion. Why do you care if someone doesn't want their gun anymore and turns it in?

The deflective arguments of drunk driving, knives, etc. really don't focus on the real issue at hand. I feel like the questions posed, especially about drunk driving, were rhetorical, but if they weren't there are some clear differentiators between massacres and DUI deaths.

DUIs do get a lot of attention. They are a high profile issue in our society right now. DUIs are punished quite harshly, unless you’re an athlete, and DUIs should be punished harshly. Driving drunk is dangerous to everyone on the road with you. We see far too many injuries and deaths from DUIs, which is why stricter punishments continue to be implemented. It’s important to make sure that there are clear deterrents in place to curb drunk driving.
There are a few reasons why they typically don’t dominate the front page every day. The American legal system relies on intent. When someone drives drunk, they typically don’t have malicious intent. Nearly all of the cases with DUIs involve negligence. The person driving isn’t leaving the bar to kill themselves and others. They are making a poor decision and trying to get home. That certainly is no excuse for drunk driving, but it is an important differentiator in the legal system.

Look at the difference between manslaughter and homicide. They have the same eventual outcome, but radically different circumstances leading to the same outcome. The intent and act of premeditation makes the crime more severe. Killing someone due to negligence or accidental situations should be punished, but not as severely.

Secondly, DUIs rarely kill more than a handful of people at once. Most DUI accidents have no casualties, or very few. That isn’t often the case with (attempted) massacres. When that happens, they are covered briefly, but they aren’t a lasting news story. I really don’t think anyone is saying that DUIs are not a serious issue in our society, but there’s no reason to merge the two subjects. They are innately different.

Instead of bickering, why don’t we put out some ideas on how to actually come to a compromise. Some of the ideas I like around reasonable gun control:

• Mandatory training. This is not a one-time training. On an interval, you’re required to get recertified to have a license.
• Mandatory Psychological Evaluations. These are also recurring and required for having a gun license.
• Improved Gun Tracking. You must register all guns and periodically audited that you have the gun you say you have. Lack of having possession of a gun results in punishment.
• Gun Responsibility. If you own a gun, and that gun is used in a crime. You are considered, at least partially, to blame for said crime. Any time a gun registered to your name comes up as used in a crime or found in possession of someone else it is a crime.
• Assault Rifle Ban. I don’t consider, because it’s fun, to be an appropriate response to the assault weapons you can buy. Have them available at shooting ranges, but not in homes. No need for them.

Sadly, this topic really demonstrates politics in America right now. Two sides so stuck in their view that they can't really have a healthy discussion, and most importantly, unable to make compromises. We need to find a way to strike compromise to coexist, let's start here. Instead of copy and pasting links to a biased source (one side or the other) what real concessions are you willing to make?

I already had to pass a background check, take a course and a test just to own a handgun in CA.

Who will be the judge of my sanity? Someone who believes in a higher power? I don't consider them my peer. This leaves the process open to the same bias that CCW in CA has. It will only be available to rich people, poor need not apply, cos you're getting turned down.

My suggestion, Daseal, remains the same: Enforce the current gun laws.

There is no need for more gun laws.

I already had to pass a background check, take a course and a test just to own a handgun in CA.

Who will be the judge of my sanity? Someone who believes in a higher power? I don't consider them my peer. This leaves the process open to the same bias that CCW in CA has. It will only be available to rich people, poor need not apply, cos you're getting turned down.

My suggestion, Daseal, remains the same: Enforce the current gun laws.

There is no need for more gun laws.

RR, it would be a licensed medical professional. Granted you won't weed out all the bad apples, but it can definitely help. What current gun laws go unenforced right now? What laws do you see massive loopholes in? You keep saying enforce current gun laws. Get a little more specific. What issues do you see with enforcement of current laws?

RR, it would be a licensed medical professional. Granted you won't weed out all the bad apples, but it can definitely help. What current gun laws go unenforced right now? What laws do you see massive loopholes in? You keep saying enforce current gun laws. Get a little more specific. What issues do you see with enforcement of current laws?

How was a known felon in possession of a .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle, a .38-caliber revolver and a 12-gauge shotgun, just to use the most recent example?

How was a known felon in possession of a .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle, a .38-caliber revolver and a 12-gauge shotgun, just to use the most recent example?

I agree. That is a major issue. How many of those guns require background checks? I have limited experience. I do remember being 17 and drunk... walking into Wal-Mart, and purchasing a rifle. Luckily the older lady behind the counter reminded us to buy ammo as well. They didn't run anything. They didn't check IDs. They just sold us the rifle. To this day, that seems odd to me. Especially if felons aren't allowed to have guns.

What about gun shows? From what I've heard those are very popular for people to easily get guns because the sales don't have to be documented. I'm fairly ignorant on that fact and would be happy for someone to enlighten me on how those work.

RR -- how would you enforce such rules? If you want rule enforcement, there have to be ways to punish shortfalls? Do you punish the people that sold/gave to him? How do you prevent it going forward. It's a tough, nearly impossible, question to answer. That's the issue. Laws must be enforceable and have clear repurcussions.

Edit: Just want to make it clear. I'm not trying to be an asshole, just invoke some real discussion.

BATFE should be tasked with enforcing these rules if they aren't already.

Selling a firearm to a person who isn't allowed one should result in a prison term.

Society as a whole has to step up.

I agree. That is a major issue. How many of those guns require background checks? I have limited experience. I do remember being 17 and drunk... walking into Wal-Mart, and purchasing a rifle. Luckily the older lady behind the counter reminded us to buy ammo as well. They didn't run anything. They didn't check IDs. They just sold us the rifle. To this day, that seems odd to me. Especially if felons aren't allowed to have guns.

What about gun shows? From what I've heard those are very popular for people to easily get guns because the sales don't have to be documented. I'm fairly ignorant on that fact and would be happy for someone to enlighten me on how those work.

RR -- how would you enforce such rules? If you want rule enforcement, there have to be ways to punish shortfalls? Do you punish the people that sold/gave to him? How do you prevent it going forward. It's a tough, nearly impossible, question to answer. That's the issue. Laws must be enforceable and have clear repurcussions.

Today any lic. gun dealer has to run a back ground check. If your a dealer at a gun show you have to do a back ground check if your a private individual selling your guns at a gun show a back ground check is not required. That's BS to me. I think if person wants to buy a gun they need to go to a place like DMV and have a back ground check. They make it good for a period of time like a month, 2months, etc... Anyone selling a gun is required to see their back ground check and to then call it in to confirm its real.

RR - It's easy to say enforce laws, but you're not giving any way for them to actually be executed. Thats why some of my suggestions included people who have their weapons used in crimes be partially responsible for the crime. It's a way to force people to keep track of their guns.

Today any lic. gun dealer has to run a back ground check. If your a dealer at a gun show you have to do a back ground check if your a private individual selling your guns at a gun show a back ground check is not required. That's BS to me. I think if person wants to buy a gun they need to go to a place like DMV and have a back ground check. They make it good for a period of time like a month, 2months, etc... Anyone selling a gun is required to see their back ground check and to then call it in to confirm its real.

Firstdown, I completely agree. Seems like a realistic and really just a common sense move. The technology we have now makes these type of systems much more realistic than in the past. Honestly, I'm surprised we haven't seen this in place already.