Rank City
30 Chicago Heights, IL
29 Baton Rouge, LA
28 Buffalo, NY
27 Hattiesburg, MS
26 East Chicago, IN
25 Birmingham, AL
24 Desert Hot Springs, CA
23 Compton, CA
22 Myrtle Beach, SC
21 Fort Pierce, FL
20 Harvey, IL
19 Bridgeton, NJ
18 Flint, MI
17 Rocky Mount, NC
16 Pine Bluff, AR
15 Petersburg, VA
14 Newark, NJ
13 Baltimore, MD
12 Harrisburg, PA
11 Jackson, MS
10 Wilmington, DE
9 Trenton, NJ
8 Riviera Beach, FL
7 New Orleans, LA
6 Camden, NJ
5 Detroit, MI
4 Gary, IN
3 St. Louis, MO
2 Chester, PA
1 East St. Louis, IL

Are a lot of cities in states with very strict gun control laws like New Jersey and Maryland and a lot of cities in states with more liberal gun control laws, like Louisiana. Where's DC?

These rates are for 2014. I'm not sure why DC isn't in that list.

So you're saying that since the Heller decision the DC murder rate has dropped.
Good to know.

so it must have raised the rate much to the delight of those Republicans.

Heller really didn't change anything with respect to gun ownership in the District -- the criminals already had guns prior to Heller and continue to commit murders with those guns.

Here: http://app.ddot.dc.gov/

Check the cameras. No flood of any kind that I can see.

NRA can't be wrong when they support McConnell's re-election campaign with a $1M donation.
They made sure that no vote will be held on any gun control in the USA in spite of the 30,000+ Americans that die every year at the hands of firearms.....so very sad.....silence on gun control indicates being complicit to the issue.

Is The NRA Wrong? New Study Shows Guns Rarely Used For Self-Defense
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/nra-wrong-new-study-shows-guns-rarely-used-self-defense-2357626

What the NRA's Millions Do—and Don't—Buy
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/nra-national-rifle-association-money-influence


Closing loop-holes, better pre-screening for mental health and increased rigor with mandatory firearm training could be points that everyone in the USA could agree upon.

Don't stop pushing for progress!!

We tend to only use neutral sources in this group. Try the DoJ, FBI or even the CDC as valid sources. Start with the 2013 CDC study on the effectiveness of gun control, that President Obama asked for. It's interesting.

At least you use neutral sources, if you don't want to be laughed out of town or worse, sent to the "Gun Control and in-Activism" safe haven group.

We don't use the NRA, GOA or anything that spews from Bloomberg's Everytown or the Brady group either.

And lumping in suicides with your numbers ... doesn't help either.

Unless of course you don't believe individuals have the right to do with their body whatever they choose to. But that puts you at odds with a number of other issues too.

Oh, and referring to "mental health" as an issue to be addressed, will get you tagged for "NRA talking points" by your fellow gun control supporters real quick here.

Who are you speaking for besides yourself?

This from the "Cut and Paste" but don't actually ever do anything king?

Doesn't even bother to read their own stuff or check the dates and embarrasses themselves on a regular basis.

Then when they do post they act like they are in charge of this group and have to be slapped down to remind them they are just a guest here and tolerated.

I'm sorry, but somebody that has his own "safe haven" group and never bothers to post there more than maybe once every other month of so has zero credibility on this issue.

On top of that you've admitted in this group that you don't really do anything to support gun control, besides whining about it online.

Of course nothing related to the OP, LOL! Please stay on topic,

@ DonP
I don't mind being flagged if its appropriate.
But the sources I listed, are credible in my opinion.

Suicides are part of the firearm death rate, which is why I included them, albeit using estimated numbers.
I hope no one will disagree that the death toll due to firearms is too high.

Of course choice is the everyone's right and will continue to be so.
But that doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to the issue and shrug our shoulders.
How do we reduce suicides by firearms?
Mental health evaluation sounds like an easy place to start for me.
Any other suggestions before someone starts to flag my comment?
Or should we do nothing and watch the numbers rise?

Opinions are like.......... offer a solution to the problem.....its better than ranting any day.

Peace!

Except they aren't rising, the numbers have been falling .... every year for almost 2 decades now.

All while gun sales have been the highest in history (as measured by the NICS system monthly background check numbers).

The best gauge of that is the (neutral source) annual FBI Uniform Crime Report (UCR) https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr. It shows that violent crime, including crime with guns of all types, has been dropping. It also points out that crime with rifles of any kind, accounts for fewer than 270 deaths every year. Fists and blunt objects account for more. So why all the energy and political capital to ban so called assault weapons? Political theater? Easy target to confuse people? Political fraud?

FWIW, most gun owners here are very supportive of better mental health screening, including myself.

But try posting the mental health issue in the Gun Control and Activism group and watch how fast you get labeled an NRA stooge or using "NRA Talking Points". Solving that involves accessing mental health records and allowing them into the NICS data base. The barrier to that are the current medical privacy HIPPA laws and the folks at the ACLU, not the NRA.

"Opinions are like.......... offer a solution to the problem.....its better than ranting any day."

Know what's really "better than ranting"? Actually doing something in the real world to address the issues you care about.

Pretty much every gun owner that posts regularly here in the DU Gungeon is active in their chosen sport. Sporting Clays, Trap, high power competition, reloading, plinking, teaching gun safety, speaking at town halls and zoning board meeting re: shooting ranges, etc. We actually spend our own money and time to back up our side of the issue.

OTOH, not one of the supposed gun control activists on DU that we've found so far actually does anything beside rant online about the need for more gun control. Ask them for examples and you'll get called names, the subject will be changed or most often, they just go away for a few days.

We can hem and haw over what firearm numbers we are talking about to make our points.
Accidental? Suicide? Homicide only? Crime only? Total deaths?

The fact is, that one firearm death of any kind is one too many.
No one in our system today, is culpable for the safety of the individual with the firearm or protects the innocent who do not have a firearm.

The majority of Americans DO want gun control - based on polling data.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/jan/05/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-say-claim-90-support-gun-background/

This highlights an odd discrepancy: While people overwhelmingly support specific gun policy ideas, like universal background checks and banning suspected terrorists from buying guns, the support is not as robust when it comes to actually expanding gun control.


"People don't seem to like the idea of ‘gun control,’ but they still want the government to do more to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill," said Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California Los Angeles and author of Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America.

I may try entering into the wolves liar, when I have some time to discuss gun control at length.
Mental Health diagnosis definitely has its challenges with HIPPA

I am glad you support fire arm safety and enjoy your guns.
No one wants to take away anyone's guns.
However we need to monitor the sale of the guns and prevent firearm deaths, if possible.

I also go out and support gun control events and sign every petition that is sent to me.
Lives spared from needless gun violence should be everyone's goal.

So instead of pointing out our differences, how can we move to a consensus to protect the 2nd and the rest of Americans?
That is the challenge.
Its not to bend the will of the opposition to one side of the issue.

Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one.
Marcus Aurelius

By first, getting any and all anti-gunners on the same page:

The second amendment protects a right not a privilege, and will be treated as such.



That's funny, because that's exactly what the antigun folks have in mind.



Uh huh.

https://www.google.com/search?q=nobody+wants+to+take+your+guns&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&gws_rd=ssl

IMO....there are 2 sides to every story and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

I agree that both sides should be open to listening to the concerns for guns and against guns.
Together we can make a difference and save at least a few lives.

I am somewhat surprised to hear you say that the gun control people you talked too were closed minded, since I have run across the exact opposite.
But maybe my gun control world is too small.

Please understand that the gun control topic is to save lives.
Why can we not start to discuss the following?
1. Increase background checks - why not? Or can we rigidly enforce the current laws?
2. Close private sale loopholes - why not? This is just wrong in my opinion.
3. Increase enforcement of current laws. Need to add more money to the budget of the ATP.
4. Double all penalties associated with gun crime. Punishment is the best deterrent.
5. Mental Health Evaluation - of course this is a huge topic that would take months to talk through due to the depth of Psychology analysis.


I can see you have defended these topics and questions for quite some time, but in the end, there has been no change to our current state of affairs.
People kill people with guns and we do nothing.

You must be new to the subject.



First, it isn't a loophole. Congress NEVER intended to regulate privately owned private property with the brady bill.

Second, there are 300 million people whos private property interests are also involved.



I assume you mean the ATF.



You can see this how?



No. We put the killers in jail where they belong, and the people that aren't killing, we generally leave them and their guns alone - as it should be.

Well I guess we may have started off with this subject without stating simple ground rules.
- all opinions are too be taken seriously and vetted out with discussion - hopefully with a solution in hand.
- although someone may feel strongly about a certain subject, we should refrain from name calling and ignoring each other.
- solution based strategy - if we agree there is a problem, can we agree on finding a solution?
This is just a simple list of how I prefer to discuss any subject, right or wrong.

Absence of a law to control private gun sales aka background checks (loopholes as I have mistakenly named it).
There is no law over these sales.
Do you agree that this needs to be addressed?

ATF (thank you for correcting my bad acronym)
Alot of Tea Party people are Pro Guns - yet they like to cut programs designed to help police the guns. Why?
If you are a Dem and Pro-Gun, then do you agree we should spend more money on the ATF? Other programs?

You posted several links to DU posts from 2 years ago, regarding "no one is taking our guns"
That's it - nothing else to take away here.....You support a pro-gun platform, no problem.

People do kill people.
Yes we try to convict and send killers to jail but what do we do to stop them from getting the gun in the first place?
Not much.
I hope you are not saying its ok for "other" people to kill each other as long as you have your gun in your safe cul de sac.

I hope we can at least move towards a rational proposal to limit access to guns from people who cannot safely operate one.
Agree?

First we have to agree on what the problem actually is.

Second, we have to agree that there are limits and avenues which will not be allowed as a solution.



All I've seen is "we want this" with very little discussion of how much or how big of a problem it is first.



Because ATF has a checkered past and has been known to operate with an ideological agenda.



So long as ATF cleans up their act...



No. That was a link to a search, which shows numerous examples of people that want to take away at least some if not all guns.

It contradicts your claim that "nobody wants to take anyones guns".



We used to keep them in jails, where guns are scarce. Now we let them out, and people like you want to further diminish the right to keep and bear arms instead.



Outside of self defense its never ok to kill people, but I also blame the individual not the instrument when people break that law.

then all they have to do is read the damn 2nd amendment, where it clearly limits ownership to well regulated militias.

Then the question will be which states will not limit access at all, thus leaving them as virtual battlegrounds, and which wont.

At this time the more sane states that do limit guns would of course limit someone from another state bringing guns in, though that will be hard to enforce.

Hard or not, enforce we must.

On its face, the 2d simply states that a purpose for private ownership of guns is to protect the security of a free state. It doesn't state that only members of a militia can own guns, but it does state that the "right" of "the people" (i.e., everyone) to own guns "shall not be infringed."

I'd ask you to explain, but theres no way you could explain how an amendment which in reality restricts only government, actually restricts me and you.

By your own words, you want a court that reads amendment 2 as a restriction on people, rather than a restriction on governmental power - a biased court.



Maybe 4 states if you're lucky.

Suuuure they do.

They just don't ever actually get around to voting or supporting it as if they do. Answering an anonymous survey, with vague questions to make yourself feel good is cheap and easy. Doing something is what counts. Exactly what kind of "Gun Control" were they thinking of when they said "yes"?

You can always believe a poll or "your lyin' eyes", when the DoJ publishes record high NICS background checks every month for over a year. Might as well believe in Kellerman, Bellisles and the tooth fairy as that poll.

But control minded folks feel that, well, "if we just control sales to the law abiding folks, eventually, maybe, it will be harder for bad guys to get guns. Let's try it and see what happens."

"One life is too many" is nice "Happy Unicorn Thinking". No one is ever going to eliminate the criminal element that always manages to find deadly weapons, no matter what laws are passed and feebly enforced.

So, when a single mother shoots a home invader it's "one too many"? A store owner stops a robbery and that's "one too many?" An Uber driver in Chicago stops a gang hit on the street by shooting the criminal, is that "one too many"?"

Do those people need to be disarmed? Or pass some kind of test to see if they are "worthy" of having a gun?

The 2013 CDC study showed that defensive gun uses, not just shootings but defense use overall, outnumber murders by at least a factor of 10. Most estimates are far higher.

"Nobody wants to take your guns" is a trite refrain we hear regularly from people who really want to feel good about themselves and think they are being "reasonable".

It's supposed to lull pro 2nd people into backing off, like they did in '94 and just let a few "reasonable new gun laws pass".

But the hard facts are there are plenty of people that want to take them away, including some here on DU that support the "Australian" model. E.g. forced confiscation without compensation.

Oh, just to get the players straight.

The NRA is 5+ million citizen members, Dem and GOP, that pay $35 a year to join. Their lobbying arm is the NRA-ILA. The NRA proper is a 501-C3 and isn't allowed to lobby or co-mingle funds with the ILA.

The gun manufacturers lobbying organization is the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) Then there's the SAF (Second Amendment Foundation) that's the one that brings so many cases to court and wins, not the NRA. A lot of gun control people are pretty ignorant about who does what and keep referencing the NRA when it's not involved in most of the court cases.

Then there are more than 50 state level organizations, not directly affiliated with any national organization, Texas State Rifle Assn., Illinois State Rifle Assn. etc.. And that doesn't even count the many national and state level hunting and conservation related organizations like Pheasants Forever, Ducks Unlimited et. al.

Soooo ... there's a pretty big, grass roots pro second amendment infrastructure already in place. And they all vote in every election along with the families and shooting/hunting buddies. That's where the political power comes from, not so much their checkbooks.

So what's the control side infrastructure look like: Bloomberg and his checkbook - Everybody else living off his money. No grass roots, no infrastructure.

by the American Petrolium Institute or Koch Industries. I seriously doubt the "researchers" followed the scientific method by not starting with the conclusion they want and create a "study" to make it look academic. IOW, the thinking person dismisses them out of hand.

Criminologists, as reflected in the CDC study done in 2013, mostly agree that DGUs are quite common.

Why? What critieria for "mental health" would be used? They are very rarely violent, and those are almost impossible to detect. What does mandatory training do? Accidents are almost nonexistent as it is. What "loop hole"? A loop hole, like "assault weapon" is whatever some politician decides it is. None of them would actually do anything. We have a gang problem. We have over a million gang members in 35K gangs. Most of our murders are concentrated in a few urban areas, while the rest of the country has European level murder rates. If you look at our most northern states, most of them have lower murder rates than the Canadian provinces they border.

Those urban areas have murder rates like Brazil, Mexico, and Venezuela. Here is a list of the the most violent cities. Most of them are in South America, but it lists places like Baltimore and Chicago.
What do they have in common? It isn't lax gun laws. Here is the real issue because all of them, including the US cities, had all of these in common
extreme wealth inequality
poor and crumbling infrastructure. Flint isn't alone nor the first with undrinkable water, it just made the news.
violent drug gangs
political corruption

Until we deal with those, we can have stricter than UK gun laws like Brazil and Mexico, or a complete ban like Venezuela, and none of it will make a difference.


http://www.businessinsider.com/the-50-most-violent-cities-in-the-world-2015-1

One more thing, the NRA's "big money" is about the same as Planned Parenthood, look it up on Open Secrets. What they really do is mobilize the grassroots.

I thought a saw a link recently to a story/statistics that showed if you deduct violence that occurs in places like Baltimore or Chicago then the US firearm murder rate is much lower than many European countries. That simply reinforces your points.

Like the; "NRA Buys the Congress", "Gun violence is epidemic", "Nobody defends themselves with a gun", "The CDC can't do gun related research", "AR15's are weapons of war" et. al.

It's all simplistic mental and moral rationalization for them.

Otherwise they'd have to realize and accept that their view is not only out of the mainstream ... but also shrinking quickly.

After all, they are intellectually, morally and ethically superior to everyone else , just ask them. Just read any thread in the other group for a gauge on the level of "Smug" they generate.

So they just keep believing in all their bumper stickers and ranting a little more irrationally as time goes by.

Not even realizing that more people are slowly shifting away from them, like a loud, annoying drunk at the party.

I can appreciate your view gejohnston, but doing nothing = more deaths.
Fixing the infrastructure and income inequality are definitely on my list on things to do as well.
But we cannot wait for other issues to be resolved, before addressing avoidable deaths.

Mental Health Evaluation is already being used in many states, although enforcement could be improved.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/possession-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx
A federal law would bring all states under one umbrella.
The state of mental health of the gun owner, can definitely be argued at different levels.
At what level is it unsafe? Who decides what level?
Privacy of mental health records?
These are just a few points to work through, but it needs to happen if we are prevent another firearm death.

Gun Control Loopholes -
UC Davis report exposes loopholes in gun-control laws
http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/20090923_gun_study/index.html

Gun show loophole (This topic even has its own WikiPage!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole

Where implementing gun control laws work......Australia
http://loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/australia.php


NRA does an excellent job getting the word out ........ "dem dam liberals are gunna take yur gun" if we let them pass one law!
Talk about some good koolaid.

They have almost every GOP rep under their wing. McConnell did take over $900k in campaign contributions from the NRA for his re-election. I am confident he will not allow one gun control bill to hit the Senate floor.......

NRA = No conscience
How can any industry shrug their shoulders, when their product is part of a death.
Car manufacturers are improving their products.....what has the NRA done?

Is it your position that the current laws are "nothing"?

(from your first link)



Not a loophole, congress did not intend background checks on personally owned private property, when they passed the brady bill which requires background checks at retail.



Your source wants to ban assault weapons. No sale. Wasn't it you that said that "nobody wants to take your guns?"

Why yes. Yes it was:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=190583



So what.



Uh oh. Ghost guns.



Its not a loophole. Congress did NOT intend to cover privately sold firearms at a gun show or anywhere else, when they passed the brady bill.



Australian style gun control will never fly in America, since what is a regulated privilege in Australia (gun ownership) is a constitutionally protected civil right in America.



I'm curious. Did you type that with a strait face, after posting links to groups that suggest banning at least some guns?



The nra doesn't make guns.


For someone who claims "No one wants to take away anyone's guns", you sure are keen on using the same talking points as those who want to ban guns, and relying on source material that suggests doing so, and even pointing to Australia and taking an ignorant dig at the nra as if they make guns.

All of us can immediately cut and paste the answers to the same questions we have been discussing for decades.
So yes, its DO NOTHING.


Of course word semantics on "loop hole" - Its not a loop hole if the Gun Industry and the NRA helped write the final version of the Brady Bill. I agree with your point.
Now lets amend to that bill and make it regulated to stop unlicensed guns.
Agree now?

I do not support Assault weapons. It is not a mistake.
Why do you need an AK-47?
Have plans to mutilate some wildlife this weekend?
I would support "taking your gun" if the person who has the gun is deemed unacceptable by the new gun control criteria.
We are a long way off from new criteria, but if someone cannot handle a gun safely, then yes I want to take your gun.
And I would hope you would agree as well for your own safety.

.50 caliber guns - again .......Why do we need this type of dangerous gun?
For the head kill after you botch a rifle shot on a deer?
I just don't understand why you bother to defend this, who cares if its .45 or .50 --- they all kill regardless of caliber.


Australia may not work here, but at least its somewhat of a comparison we can use to cobble something workable for the USA.
We have to start somewhere.
Just saying NO to gun control isn't helping.

On the NRA.
I have also been with the NRA in the past and it is what they send you in the mail.
Fear mongering pamphlets about taking your gun.
Don't give an inch or they'll take a mile.
Total brainwashing......

Of course the NRA doesn't make the guns, but its what most people identify with.
How about I'll use Gun Manufacturers and the NRA? OK?
I am digging on the NRA since they turn a blind eye to the problem they help to proliferate.

I do not want to take everyone's guns away, but if we could possibly come to a consensus and somehow get Congress to pass at least one amendment, and if it said if the person was XXXX mentally ill and cannot have a gun , then YES I will come take that gun and I would hope you would too.

What part of "owning a gun is a right not a privilege" do you not understand?

And "licensed"? Theres something like 4 states that require it, I.E. almost nowhere in America are guns "licensed".



I don't actually own any, nor do I have any desire to, however...You have given no reason why people shouldn't own them, and we do not live in a nation with a department of needs. Make your case, or don't, but know full well that "just because I say so" doesn't cut it.



An AK fires a 7.62 round with is roughly ballisticly equivalent to the 30-30, one of the most popular hunting rounds in history:



That's the AK round center, and the 30-30 round on the right. So the question is, are you planning on knowing what you're talking about instead of spouting canned talking points, any time soon?



We live in a free society. What people own isn't subject to "need" nor your understanding of any particular individuals needs.

Make your case, or don't, but know full well that "just because I say so" doesn't cut it.



You mean the national firearms act of 1934 and the gun control act of 1968 weren't "a start"? The fopa of 1986 and the brady bill from the 90s? Those weren't "a start"? Surely the Lautenberg amendment was a start?

And if none of those were a start, and we haven't made one yet, kindly tell me and everyone else where it ends.



And yet here you are interpreting the "arms" in the second amendment as "some guns but only those which I approve of".

You're an extremist, trying to project the pretense that you're moderate. I'm under no duty to pretend with you.



When will you and those who think like you get it through your heads:

The nra and gun manufacturers are not responsible for the illegal choices of individuals.

I'm sorry you don't want to discuss this topic with a solution in mind.

Only 4 states have laws regarding licensing - sounds like an opportunity to fix the rest of the USA.
Laws were meant to be amended. That's our Constitution.
Especially when other Americans are dying due to the law or the lack of enforcement.

AK47
OK - I say they are useless for sport - you say let people decide.
Sounds like a referendum on a local ballot.
One possible solution here.

So I can use my 30-30 rounds in my AK47?
Ammo is expensive, so I can save some money?
There is no good reason to keep a AR15, AK47 or any possibly automatic weapon.
(protect you from the government you say? if they can drone bomb people halfway around the world, then they'll be by to take your gun from your cold dead hands, when they're ready)

.50 caliber
Keep your .50 caliber if you want a bigger hole through the target at shooting practice.
I just don't understand why anyone would need a .50 caliber anything.
Your right, your choice - but with better background checks

Starting somewhere....
Those laws need updated desperately or at least amended.
When people stop killing other people, then we can stop talking about additional gun control.
Maybe its not through the gun control laws but maybe through the DMV when you get your drivers license and they submit you to a mental evaluation to drive a car and possess a firearm (at the same time).
Saves time and money and it may stop one accidental killing.


On NRA/Gun Companies - Extremist? Maybe.... Loud Activist? Yes!
I will always hold my opinion as you will hold on to yours.
However, I am more than willing to come to the middle and discuss how we can rationally resolve the opposing sides.
If you want your guns, so be it, but we need to agree upon a way to filter out some of the bad people.
This is a very small step to a bigger problem such as inequality and the poor urban areas.


NRA = No responsibility
When will the NRA set up a fund for the people injured/killed by firearms?
Sounds like deferred ignorance from the gun industry.
Turn away from the problem and focus on the gun control people....nevermind what horrific firearm experiences you see everyday in the news.
When will the NRA have mandatory training for all its members to avoid accidental killings?
Where's the culpability?

When a product is dangerous in the USA, and it kills someone, the companies involved typically take steps to improve the product to make it safer. This is largely due to the fact that these companies can be sued, even if there product is used in a manner not designed for.
Guns are made for killing, yet the gun industry is protected by US law from being sued.
Is this not a little odd to you?
People can sue an automobile company for using a car as a weapon, but can't sue the gun companies or at least make them liable to provide free training to all gun customers? Where is their skin in this costly game?

Good conversation so far.....

So you define our current state of laws with the national firearms act of 1934, the gun control act of 1968, the fopa of 1986, the brady bill, the Lautenberg amendment, and several thousand state gun laws, as unfettered?

Wow, you're more of an extremist than I realized.



I'm sorry you don't want to discuss solutions with reality in mind.



Ah. No. Banning semi-automatic rifles is a non-starter. My rights are not subject to popular vote:

“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

Justice Robert H. Jackson of the Supreme Court 1943




The discussion about so called "assault weapons" is about civilian legal semi-auto weapons, not fully automatic weapons.

Banning semi-autos is a non-starter.



Examples?



The function of law is generally to punish an act after the fact. I question the value of law in prevention. And I reject the notion that my rights should be on the chopping block because a tiny percentage of a percentage of people misuse guns resulting in them killing others.



First, I've been to the DMV in several states numerous times. I've never seen given any mental exam for driving.

Second, your comparison is apples and oranges. One of these things is not like the other - a constitutionally protected civil right.

Besides that, one can possess a car without the DMV just fine and legal. And drive it too, on private property.





That sounds so nice...on the surface. It almost sounds like you want to "compromise", but you don't.



You might try focusing on the bad people instead of the guns, theres a whole lot less of them.



When will ford set up a fund for people injured/killed by cars?



That's true in the case of malfunction, and less than sound design.

Nobody is suing GM because the corvette or camaro are too fast, handle and brake too well, have too large a fuel tank, or look like a race car.

Nor should they in a free society.



No, not when the intention of the suits in question was to sidestep the second amendment and sidestep congress and bankrupt an entire industry.

Its not unprecedented:



To quote another poster:





What a ridiculous thing to do. I wouldn't support such nonsense. Would you?



And how far will you take that? Guns? Knives? Plastic cutlery and utensils?

And I would like to remind you of the definition of pretense:
Simple Definition of pretense

: a false reason or explanation that is used to hide the real purpose of something

: an act or appearance that looks real but is false

: a claim of having a particular quality, ability, condition, etc.


Please help me to understand, what you think my pretense is?
My most simplistic thought - Bad people with guns kill people, when 10,000s of people die in our great country due to guns, we need to do something about it.
You call this pretense?
Please let me know, what I am thinking, so I'll know too.


I like your fact links and the detailed responses, but how can we move forward?
Are you stating no gun control ever?
Our system is perfect as is?
Improve the ATF?
Let me know, what you are thinking...... instead of me making proposals and you knocking them down.


I respect your opinion on no referendum, but the quote you posted from the SC does not mention guns at all.
It mentions the bill of rights, but in the justice;s response, he does not list guns at all.
Amend the constitution! We can do it, they put that in there too!


Banning semi-auto -- non-starter.
OK
Then we'll just add a mental heath evaluation and mandatory training before purchasing a gun
I do not think this point is unreasonable at all.
Why pro-gun activists like to defend giving guns to possibly schicophrenic people, is beyond me.


The current laws do not filter out mentally ill people (I know this is a big one to discuss since its so broad) but this would definitely help to limit the firearm deaths.


Punishment:
No one's rights have been put on the chopping block.
I proposed increasing the mandatory sentencing requirements for people who do not follow the current gun laws.
A strong punishment does send a message to people who are not following the rules.
Law abiding citizens as yourself would not see a change at all.
Maybe steer the "fine" money to training/shooting centers.



DMV and Mental Health Screening:
This is just my proposal.
Get it done at the same time so we can evaluate the person's well being to drive a car and own a gun.
Social responsibility to protect our neighborhoods, towns, cities, etc...

Compromise:
Of course I want it my way and you want it yours.
But if we both agree that we disagree, then the subject goes nowhere.
If the "people" can agree on some consensus points, then we can pressure our congressmen/politicians to move forward with improving our safety.
I've already proposed many options to many issues surrounding gun control.
Can you share some of your ideas?
Sound good?

Bad people:
To focus on the bad people, we need a filter to identify them.
How do you propose to weed them out?
Previous armed felons? Mentally ill people beyond XYZ criteria? (dementia, etc)
How to filter is the question not whether or not we do it....imo.

The NRA:
They show little to no responsibility of how their industry they support, influences Americans on an everyday basis.
Ford improves their products all the time and they become safer each year.
Ford pays their fair share of lawsuits the gun industry does not.
NRA does.........
Please help me to fill in this blank.....what do they do?

Sueing the Gun Manufacturers:
Although this will never happen(sueing the industry), we should hold the gun industry accountable from a social aspect.
NRA funded training for semi-automatic weapons.
NRA funded gun cabinet program.
Tax credits for gun owners who participate in the programs.

Laws protecting the gun industry:
It will always be about money period.
You make a good point that the lawsuit would go beyond the 2nd amendment, which is not acceptable.
However, I still believe we need to move forward with some sort of liability for the gun industry.
Better training, increased safety, improved vetting process for new gun owners, etc...
The gun industry should be helping us make it a safer place in America not blocking all forms of reform.

Aviation Order:
Good link.
Although Clinton did sign this, we limited the protection for 18 years.
I would agree to a limited protection agreement for all guns on the market.
20 years? 30 years? When does the gun become unsafe?
Periodic checks of guns over 30 years old to deem them safe or possibly list them as "antique" and not for use?

Consumer Protection:
I know the USA is lawsuit happy, but I truly believe the gun industry needs to help make it safer.
We do not need more lawsuits, but we do need to reduce the firearm deaths by quite a lot.

Thank you for posting good links.

You asked another poster this:



That's one example of the pretenses I refer to. The pretense is that it is the hobby rather than the wrong choices of an individual in choosing to murder someone, which is detrimental to the people of this country, which makes it a false pretense.

It is when people act outside their rights where the problem occurs, just as it does when someone shouts fire in a crowded theater or incites a riot.

This is self evident, but not to those that hate guns.



But it isn't due to guns, its due to bad choices. Guns are simply the instrument.



Think outside the gun control box.



No, I didn't say that.



Here, let me highlight the relevant parts for you:

“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

In case it had not occurred to you, amendment 2 is contained within the bill of rights.



Insisting that it is a right and not a privilege, is not defending giving guns to anyone. If you can't be bothered to know the difference and to treat it as the right it is, we're definitely not going to make any progress.

Instead, Universal mandatory gun safety training in grade 12 of high school. I'm all for it.



Good luck. The other anti-gunners will just accuse you of using an nra talking point.



A ban on semi-auto weapons would most certainly be an interference with my rights. You just proposed that in this thread, so please, don't try to project the pretense it is otherwise.



Again, you do not understand the difference between a right and a privilege. When you're evaluated at a DMV, you're being evaluated for the PRIVILEGE of driving on public roads, not the right to own a car. You propose a constitutionally protected civil right be treated EXACTLY the same way by government as a PRIVILEGE. Blind people can own cars, and guns, because owning property is a RIGHT and owning a gun is a constitutionally protected RIGHT.



What are you willing to give up?



Its called behavior. Bad people aren't bad people until they've done something to justify the label.

Any farther than that and you begin to leave due process territory and enter minority report territory.



The NSSF is the gun industry lobby group. The nra doesn't influence anyone to murder anyone, nor do they try, nor do they come even arguably close.



Nobody sues ford for a mustang that handles too good, holds too much fuel, goes too fast, or looks like a race car.

The equivalents of those are what anti-gunners want to sue gun makers for, when some third party criminal illegally misuses a firearm.



The gun industry certainly does pay its share. Nobody is prevented from suing them for a defective firearm.



Promotes and lobbies for the second amendment and gun related causes. I haven't heard their stance on immigration, have you?




I can not support holding a company responsible for what a third party (you DO understand that gun makers don't sell direct to the public right, they sell to FFLs, who sell to the public?) does with the companies legally sold legally made product, and I certainly would not want to live in the bland world where it was commonplace with all industries.



I would agree to a blanket covering all markets guns or not.

I don't think ford or miller should be sued when someone drives drunk, nor do I think DPMS should be sued when someone criminally misuses one of their rifles.



Firearms that are unsound are still allowed as grounds to sue. Firearms that function properly are not.

The PLCAA keeps it that way.

That always seems to be the sticking point in these "conversations".

Most control fans seem totally taken aback by the concept that they should have to "give up" anything.

"National Concealed Carry reciprocity for UBC? Don't be silly."

It's more of a "compromise" along the lines of; "OK, you give this up now and we'll be back to negotiate for the rest later"

The middling act is old and tired, but it really becomes laughable when combined with the usual anti-gun talking points, terminology, and methodology. Particularly when applied to the usual targets such as so called assault weapons, the imfamous ghost gun, and long distance target rifles which are essentially never used in crime or gun violence.

If theres more of a "tell", I don't know that I've seen it.

It's an ego thing for them IMNSHO, where they really need to see themselves as reasonable and "common sense" just looking for "solutions" and "compromise". Only they have the unique insight to solve this knotty problem.

At least until you ask that big question about what they're willing to trade off.

They really only know what the bumper stickers and Bloomberg press releases have told them and think they are right up to date on what's happening. Then they can't deal with being faced with actual facts from neutral sources like DoJ or the FBI.

To them the problem is we're all just too stupid to see how reasonable they are being to us neanderthal gun nutz.

My recent favorite was in another thread, where a Brit refuses to accept any facts from his own police departments on crime and violence. Just keeps ranting about how horrible America is with guns

But they all start the discussion with all the same old tropes trotted out in short order, "magazine limits", "Don't need this or that" all while repeatedly reassuring us how "reasonable" they want to be. As long as we recognize their brilliant insights and accept what they demand.

Sorry, I'm through playing nice with the delicate flowers.

(First, I'll apologize for leaving this thread open, since it was time to clock out yesterday.)
Now back to the thread for a bit.....

Although I have chuckled at your attempts to try and judge my character and genuineness, as I read the previous posts, I can ascertain, that you view everyone who is anti-gun as not sincere with their posts and full of "pretense".
Oh boy, good thing I have alot of patience to handle your stubbornness.

Point one:
Knotty problem.
As I have tried to propose many different ideas to reduce the amount of firearm deaths, you relish in tearing them down.
Yet you never propose anything yourself except the status quo.

May I ask you to look in the mirror and say the word pretentious? If you know so much more about the issue and all of the facts and figures, then what is your proposal to keep all semi-automatic guns,high caliber, open carry, etc while reducing the number of firearm deaths? (here is where you typically respond with your own question, which dodges mine)

Point two:
Solution based strategy.
Lets use your data from the FBI and DOJ (hopefully we can get CDC data in the future)
Shall we break up the deaths into the FBI categories, and start naming ideas to reduce the death ratios by category?
Shall we separate the guns into categories and list what guns are off limits and what guns should have more ownership filters?
How would you like the solution analysis to work? (another chance for you to dodge with your own question, yet there's more chances coming.......)

Point three:
Trade off?
What would you like me to trade off on? Free bullets? No ban on semi-autos?
I've been waiting for at least one objective from the pro-gun side other than the typical "hell no" to any change.
What is the pro-gun cause?
Just say no to everything?
If its just say no, then may as well vote Tea Party, so at least you will know your congressman will do nothing, when he goes to the floor.

Point four:
Gun Control Knowledge
Although I do a better job at researching, than reading bumper stickers, this group has a vast amount of knowledge concerning the gun control issue.
I have learned alot from reading your posts and also can appreciate the pro-gun points.
The more I discuss this subject, the more I understand the deep divisions within the 2 sides.
In the end, both sides are pretentious to a point, about certain specifics concerning gun control.

There are small things we can do to improve gun control but the bigger issues like economic, education and social status will bring more success to reduce the death rates.

Point five:
I never said anyone was dumb who owned a gun.
There are "intellectually challenged" people wherever you go and owning a gun is not a criteria.
Name calling only indicates that you have run out of intelligent things to say.

Point six:
You mentioned magazine limits.
Is there a scenario that would be dangerous with a larger magazine?
I'm thinking for the average American, that the answer is no.
Magazine limits usually are brought up after mass killings, but in reality it would do little to deter the mass killing in the first place.
Guess I'm back to social inequality issues to reduce the number of mass killings.


Final points? What I've learned so far......
1. Increased enforcement of current gun laws - (funding for ATF)
2. Increased mandatory training for new gun owners (to reduce the amount of accidental deaths.)
3. Mental Health Evaluation - (This is a sticky topic for sure, but would help reduce the overall deaths by stopping gun ownership for people with dementia and similar brain diseases. Not to stop someone who has depression or a less serious mental illness)
4. Add new law to force background checks at every level i.e. gun shows. (is there a reason to object to this?)
5. If both sides can agree to at least 2 or 3 points, then I know we could accomplish change in our system. (both sides are very passionate and will follow through until completed - basically 2 sides with one very LOUD voice)

That's about it for now....
Let the flagging begin

Your talking points are awash in false pretense and incorrect information. How many examples from this thread would you like? How any of us views "everyone who is anti-gun" is not the question. How any of us would could and should view someone using well worn anti-gun talking points and false pretenses IS the question, because that's what YOU have done in just about every post in this thread.



That, is a typical anti-gun talking point. I told you earlier, think outside the gun control box. If you want to know how most of us feel about it, think of a huge barricade around the right to keep and bear arms, that keeps grubby anti-gun mitts out. Work outside of it and you'll get no resistance from us.

But that's just never good enough for you anti-gun folks is it.



Work outside the barricade with your solutions, and you'll meet no resistance.



Well well well. Offering what we already have as a bargaining chip to get what you want. Still wonder why nobody trusts anti-gunners?



Overall, for people like you to leave us, our guns, and our rights alone.



To see our rights respected as rights rather than privileges.



No. Only that which is objectionable



No. Not for "gun owners", and not "as a condition of buying a gun". If you're going to impose gun safety training, make it universal.

12th grade high school nationwide. Universal



First, what problem would it solve/mitigate, and how big a problem is that problem?


Second, what are you willing to give up in return?

Please do not label me as another anti-gunner, I have come here with an open mind to the issue with the objective of trying to draw some consensus to this issue. You show little character as you attach broad labels to anyone outside of your ring.

Your talking points are awash in false pretense and incorrect information. How many examples from this thread would you like? How any of us views "everyone who is anti-gun" is not the question. How any of us would could and should view someone using well worn anti-gun talking points and false pretenses IS the question, because that's what YOU have done in just about every post in this thread.

The talking points are worn out because their is no solution yet and nor do you seem to want one.
You defend owning a gun (which I also support as a RIGHT) yet you want to ignore the 1% of bad people who own a gun for devious purposes.

False pretense/Incorrect information?
My goal is to reduce firearm deaths........
There are many avoidable firearm deaths in the USA. Which I guess you don't care since its not close to your personal life.
So I guess you don't agree its a problem that "other" people kill each other with firearms....... "not my problem bud".
(hope your not going to church on Sunday with that thought process)


anti-gun talking points viewpoint?
Sooooo, if I joined the NRA and owned multiple guns and went to shooting events then you would listen to my "reduce firearm deaths" talking points?
And I snicker at your label anti-gun, I am not anti-gun, but want to see something done to reduce the firearm deaths.
Sorry that you prefer to make it black v white, but I'm just not that person. (insert your conjecture here....)


gun control box?
My short list - hopefully outside of the box.
- So no banning of any weapon would be ok. No guns banned at all is a good idea?
- But would enforcing background checks universally be ok? At private sales as well?
- Universal Mandatory training @ 12th grade or up for new gun owners.
- Mental health evaluation for serious brain diseases? People with dementia or similar should not have guns.
- Gun cabinet (with lock) rebate program from the Government? Accidental deaths happen everyday in the USA since the guns are not locked away from children to "play with". Hopefully still outside of the box, since I have already "given" you no bans on any gun.

I am thinking the main reason no one wants to add to my list, is that all of you are afraid of appearing to negotiate with the enemy.

Solution based strategy:
So I'm on the right track here.

No ban on semi-autos?
No ban on any gun?
Is that better than what you have now?
I asked for your input and threw out what I have been seeing in other posts.
Its not my goal to ban anything, although I must admit one of my first posts indicated that they supported banning them (my fault)

Leave us alone mentality
I will not stop trying to reduce unnecessary deaths in the USA. Firearms are the most dangerous product we can purchase at Walmart at any time by almost anybody.
This is a problem that the pro-gun side refuses to acknowledge and address.
(They'll go away if we are mean and nasty to them and say no to everything they propose)
I like you guys, I'm gonna drop by and chat with everyone now and again

Owning a gun is a RIGHT:
I agree and can see why there is alot of passion behind keeping it the way it is, after reading many posters.
But hopefully we can agree on implementing measures to reduce the death rate.
Keep your gun but help reduce the firearm death rate......sound like the middle now?

Universal 12th grade training:
Interesting proposal - educate everyone on safety so they understand the correct way to handle a gun.
I like it. Now we need funding.
I'll digress and also wonder if universal alcohol/drug abuse training should be mandatory across the USA.



Background Checks at shows.
Although I am not a firearm numbers guy, I would imagine the risk is not that high, but why would we allow a certain group of people to be outside the law? Why did the Brady bill leave that out?
Seems like common sense to me. to hold the law over everyone universally.
Obviously most "bad" guns are not coming from the shows. But some are, I will suppose.
If we can stop one person from killing their nemesis with a gun bought at a show, then I'm for it.

I hate to ask a question at the end of an answer, but why do gun show people object to background checks?
Too hard?
Too much $$ to vet people out?
Or in my uneducated opinion.....too lazy cuz its easier to just take cash.


What would I give up in return?
No bans on any gun?
But enforcement and background checks are strictly enforced.
I really don't know what the pro-gun side wants as a bargaining chip.
.50 caliber rifles?
A program similar to the airlines TSA Precheck?
All gun owners that have been prescreened do not have to go through a background check?
I really don't know what your side would want or accept from the anti-gun side except just leave the guns alone.


Still a good conversation - I like this forum and the people.

Your pretense to objectivity is obvious.

Your posts here have been a collection of evasions, strawman arguments, pretenses of
ignorance, and general mendacity of a quality that ought to have the more thoughtful
of your fellow pilgrims on the antigun path murmuring "Dude, get a grip- you're making us look
bad!".

'Ought to'- but won't, as the general run of ammophobic pundits tend to ooze an intellectual and
ethical skeeviness of a sort that works well only on the more credulous of the true believers.

The disinterested reader will note that the Vince McMahon of gun control,
Mike Bloomberg, had the smarts to hire a former Monsanto PR head to work the rubes for him coordinate his media campaign. That same reader will also note your
...interesting... definition of 'compromise', as you have not actually offered any concessions,
merely modulated your demands when met with resistance.

To paraphrase the great John Vernon in The Outlaw Josey Wales:

Don't piss on our backs and tell us it's raining

Hello Friendly_Iconoclast, glad you can make the forum!

Opening with a rant is good for the soul, I hope you feel better
And I can say that no anti-gunner has said anything to me about "making them look bad".
Nice try though!

If you would want me to offer concessions, then please list what you want?
I have the following from this forum:
1. Stay out of the gun control box and work on fixing social, economic and education lapses in our current society.
2. Subtle changes to the current laws and enforcement, which could identify the people that could not operate a gun safely.
3. Gun Owner privacy is paramount
4. No ban on semi-autos

Would you like to add more? Or disagree with my list.
The choice is yours.

I love that quote too but I usually use it for describing Reagan trickle down economics.

Peace!

If you are not aware of what the various laws are, you would do well to educate yourself on the matter.

If you are aware of what they are, and how they apply, and are merely moderating your
demands- well, then your entire theme in this thread has been at best prevarication.

I do not have a thorough understanding of all of the federal or state gun laws.

I can tell you that GA is an open carry everywhere state!
Most people here do not mind seeing pistols at the Golden Corral or Waffle houses.
When people start brandishing the Ak47s and AR15s, it starts to worry people in a bad way.
This is where the anti-gun groups get upset.
Showing little kids at Walmart their AR 15.
Not good, when the parents do not own a gun.
Anyway, I digressed.

I have not had much time to do deeper research on the dynamics of current gun laws.
I do need to read up on it, so I can intelligently respond to other people in this forum.

From other posters, that I have spoken with recently.
1. Universal open carry/conceal law for the USA across state lines.
2. Reduced NFA fees
3. Modify access to Gun Free zones - I have proposed having the NRA keeping a registry for all "approved" gun owners to enter into gun free zones. Most gun owners are law abiding citizens and could be authorized to enter the zone, if they met specific criteria.

I like your extensive vocabulary, it keeps me on my toes!
Peace!

Show me one place where I've labeled you and you didn't earn it.



Let me be perfectly crystal clear. I have no problems with solutions which do not interfere with or infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If you see only solutions that necessarily do that, you are the problem.



You claim you support owning a gun as a right, yet you want to attach all kinds of qualifiers to it which would NEVER fly if proposed on speech or voting.

That's not exactly what I'd call "support".

I don't ignore the 1 percent at all. I expect them to be your focus, rather than rifles with grips that protrude.



Right from the manual:

#1: ALWAYS FOCUS ON EMOTIONAL AND VALUE-DRIVEN
ARGUMENTS ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023396665

Furthermore, you don't know how many people I have personally lost to gun violence, so that's a huge assumption on your part, and a false one to boot.



I never said it isn't a problem. That's you making shit up.



Nra membership got nothing to do with it. Anti-gun talking points are anti-gun talking points no matter what orgs you belong to.



Wait, you want to ban so called assault weapons, 50 caliber rifles, want annual training as a qualifier to exercise a constitutionally protected civil right, along with a host of other conditions which would NEVER be accepted on voting or speech rights, but you're not anti-gun. Yeah, right.

Unless your position has changed on those. Has it?



Nope. Nobody here is much interested in helping anti-gunners move the football, because we know full well what their goals are. While you may or may not have the best of intentions, they do not, for a fact.



Hey, great, more power to you. Try ways that don't mess with gun ownership, and you may actually get some support from people not in the gun ban camp.




That's an opinion, not an established empirical fact. Otherwise known as a false premise.



Then don't propose qualifications on that right that would never be accepted on voting or speech.



I'm not looking for the middle. In all actuality, if we were in "the middle" we wouldn't even be discussing firearms, we'd be discussing weapons of actual war, because the second amendment doesn't say "firearms" it says "arms. Instead, were here debating firearms, which are but a tiny subset of all arms. Definitely not "the middle"

In any case, I'm looking to stop most new gun control dead in its tracks, and force people like you to go to other non-gun control methods, because the right has been interfered with quite enough for my tastes.



I'm not in favor of trading a few lawless individuals for a lawless government.



Because of the commerce clause of the constitution. The federal government was granted authority over interstate commerce in the constitution. Interstate commerce is commerce between two or more states. A private sale of a firearm within the same state, whether at a gun show, or newspaper add, garage sale, or internet post, is intra-state commerce, something the federal government was never explicitly given authority over. That is why congress did not add that to the brady bill. That is why its not a "loophole".



It isn't "gun show people" who object. Its "private property" people who don't want to see a federal power grab - which is what a federal private sale background check law would be - that object.



Yes, in order to get what you want.



We already generally have that. You can't offer up something we already have as a bargaining chip.



Again, You can't offer up something we already have as a bargaining chip. You want new controls, offer up some restrictions to eliminate.



I can think of a few things I've seen. Nationwide conceal carry reciprocity. NFA fee reduced to 10 bucks for 5 years. NFA registry re-opened permanently. Elimination of so called gun free zones. Elimination of all executive orders covering import of rifles and ammunition. Elimination of "may issue" concealed carry.



To simply own a gun?



No more offending controls, and elimination of some existing controls which are offensive in nature.

Smoke'em if you got em boys, its time for some poker!!

As I have said, I have plenty of patience to handle most forms of stubbornness.
I usually don't go away too easily.

Let's begin!

1. Name calling
If you insist on calling me an anti-gunner, then so be it.
Perception is in the eye of the beholder.
Your label must be interpreted by me, as something I care about or believe.
Which is neither for me.
So label away beevul! I'm good with it and may add a few descriptors to my own evaluation.

2. Right to bear arms and stay out of the gun control box.
OK - I can appreciate this hard point.
No banning semi-automatics for one.
Hopefully we may be able to agree upon some subtle changes to the current process then.
Filters for extreme cases of mental instability? Dementia and the like?

3. Gun ownership is a right and not a privilege.
I totally get this.
The reason I try to propose filters is to get dialogue going.
Most of you, in this forum, know quite a bit about the gun control positions, laws and insights.
What is a sane subtle way to add a filter(or something), without infringing on the 2nd amendment, that would reduce firearm deaths?
This is the toughest question to date and now my focus.

4. Anti-Gun Media Manual?
Very interesting to see this on a lobbying company site.
Sorry to say the shoe doesn't fit but I may be more sensitive to preserving other people's lives than you are, but I am not following any guide, if that is what you are proposing.
There is no hidden agenda here. Just passion to improve the quality of our short lives.

I like how the post ends, pondering if the NRA has the same type of guide.
Probably the exact opposite. Stick with the facts and don't get emotional.
Hence the deep divisions between the sides.

You may or may not have lost someone close to you by gun violence. I chose my words incorrectly.
But your comments appear to indicate a certain level of insensitivity to other firearm deaths.

5. Making shit up?
As I pointed out above, you may or may not believe there is a problem with other people dying from firearms, but in my opinion, if you are a God fearing person, then Jesus may want to have a few words with you about loving thy neighbor.
Ignoring a serious problem is the same as an endorsement, imo.

6. NRA talking points?
Of course the NRA has alot to do with it.
The NRA is the voice box of the gun owners, as I understand it.
Theoretical:
If the NRA offered up a subtle change to the background process(or something) and peddled the concept to its members, then I would have to believe that at least 50% of the members would back it (especially if Ted Nugent and Chuck Norris did a quick monologue on it).

And I have stopped the anti-gun posts and am working on reducing the firearm deaths.
This is the ultimate goal that both sides should agree on.

7. Position changed?
Well I can definitely say that my position has changed quite a bit since discussing the topics with this forum.
There is alot of koolaid being fed to the anti gun groups but also on the pro gun side as well.
Most of you have enlightened me to the pro-gun positions and why they are so important both to the individual and the Constitution.
I think I am starting to formulate a different position on how to resolve this issue.
Subtle changes are required to reduce firearm deaths but certain areas are basically non-negotiable.
Increasing the current filters to buy a gun would probably not work very well.
But applying the cuurent process universally (as in gun shows) would be something I think is acceptable.
Reducing accidental firearm deaths could be implemented by gun safes/cabinets.

I believe there is a notion from this forum that would include increased gun safety and reducing accidental deaths.
But the bigger problem, I now realize, is to go back to the anti-gun side and get them to tone down the total ban attacks and get them to see the subtle changes required to move this subject forward.

And I will add that I mistakenly posted my first link that had banning semi-automatic weapons and other guns as well.
That was not my intent.

8. Moving the football:
I get this now too.
Although not all anti gun people are so emphatic about total bans, the lobbying groups funding the anti gunners are very much about total bans.
This is an issue to be addressed from the anti-gun side.
I'll probably spend more time bitching at them to tone it down, than the time I've spent here understanding the root cause for the pro-gun stance.

Anyway, we cannot have consensus if one side is pushing a point, that will never be accepted by the other side.
If one of the main non-starters is bans on semi-automatics, then take it off the table period.
We can find other things to discuss and hopefully agree upon.

9. Firearms aren't the most dangerous product to buy at Walmart?
I hope you were smiling when you wrote that one.
Firearms are primarily designed for killing something somewhere.
Of course you can tell me about the shooting ranges and events, but those are not the firearms I am referring too.
Handguns are very dangerous when paired with people who do not respect the safety factor.
This is where I like to propose mandatory universal training in 12th grade(thanks gejohnston!)

10. Middle ground not achievable?
I doubt it.
There is always a way to get something done, even if its a very small step.
If adding a new gun control law is a non starter, then what about gun safes/cabinets to increase safety?
Mandatory Universal training for all 12th grades to inform the entire public on guns?
There are other points to possibly agree upon to reduce the death rates related to firearms.

To me the word arms is just that .... a word.
The issue at hand is reducing firearm deaths by some means.
I don;t want to debate what is considered an "arm" for war use or for recreational use.

Its also interesting that you compare gun ownership to free speech and voting.
I get the Bill of Rights reference, but not much after that.

11. Background checks at shows:
At some point these people will be regulated, one way or another.
It will either be through taxing the sale or reducing counterfeit fraud.
We probably won't even get to subtly change the way the gun shows are monitored since the government will take care of it through other means other than gun control.
That's my 2 cents.

12. Brady Bill
Thank you for the summary.
So I'm starting to get a better picture of why pro-gunners are totally opposed to federal mandates.
Let the states decide about gun shows, since it is in their jurisdiction.

13. Background question from me:
So no federal power grab but the states could enact such laws and it would be ok?
That's what my take away is.
Or maybe a federal registry with gun owners that are already pre-approved for purchasing guns?
If not, then a NRA registry with approved gun owners?
We can't allow people, that may not have the mental capacity, to own a gun.

14. No ban on any gun?
We may already have that, but the goal here is to stop the rhetoric on the anti gun side to push the total ban philosophy.
We can find other ways to reduce firearm deaths.
I've moved my position!

15. Restrictions to eliminate.
Very interesting to think about.
Trade an old restriction for a new one?
This could be tough to find restrictions that are apples to apples, but this could work.

16. National wide open carry reciprocity?
This could work within neighboring states, but I don't know if you will every get anti-gun states to go along.
Could be tough, but creating universal federal open carry laws would get other people upset, like the state's rights people.
More complications......

NFA fee reduced? - this sounds easy to me. We can easily borrow money from the DOD fund to cover these fees.

Eliminate Gun free zones? - This is a tough one for me to agree on, since I am about choice for the people. If the town wants a gun free zone, then they should vote for it and implement it, if they don;t want it, then don;t create a referendum for it. I am not a big supporter of gun free zones, just a big supporter of choice for the people.
How about gun free zones that have an exception for people who are registered to the national conceal/carry registry? (like the TSA precheck system - already approved by the Govmint to conceal/carry in these zones)
This would infringe on privacy but allow conceal/carry to certain individuals.
(now that I have reread that, I am thinking that it will be quite difficult to just offer something for nothing regarding either side)

Eliminate executive orders to stop imports?
Hmmm, I did not know we did this.
This has to be to protect the gun/ammo manufacturers here in the USA.
Foreign commerce needs to change to make it more competitive here in the US.
This is a free enterprise system, why do we block competitors from selling here?
Sounds like big money doing the blocking.


17. TSA Precheck?
I was trying to propose a way to have an ID that would allow an individual to purchase a gun at any time.
Pre-approved so to speak.
This may be a dumb idea, but I threw it out there anyway.

18. Laws are tough to repeal but easier to amend.
So I'm kinda feeling that if we can agree to loosen the "handcuffs" in certain gun control areas, then we may be able to agree upon additional subtle changes to current laws to improve universal safety and reduce firearm deaths.

Thanks beevul!
Enlightening conversation, at least for me!

If there is one, the anti-gunners can't seem to find it or provide evidence of its existence. We on the other hand have documented at least 2 different anti-gun talking point manuals.



Debates are no place for emotion, they're a place for logic and reason.





I wish you luck. You should, however, be forewarned. Engaging anti-gunners as you describe will get you labeled a 'gun humper', an 'ammosexual', inferences that you're 'compensating', and much worse". I suggest you skim this thread, it is an eye opener:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11729858



I guess I don't view things the same way as you. Something is either potentially lethal, or it isn't, as far as I'm concerned. I don't differentiate much deeper than that, since it is how an individual decides to use a thing, that determines its lethality, not the thing itself.



That wasn't GE, it was me.



Debating it wasn't really the point. Pointing out that were way past the middle towards the prohibitionist end of the scale right here and right now today, was the point.



Fundamental rights are fundamental rights, in this case, fundamental constitutionally protected civil rights. If a restriction or condition wouldn't be tolerated on voting rights, why should it be tolerated on second amendment rights which enjoy greater protection than voting rights? Or, for more of a direct parallel, why should restrictions be tolerated on second amendment rights, which would never be tolerated on first amendment rights?



Not open carry, concealed carry.




Gun free zones eliminate freedom of choice for people who carry.



I see. And if they want to bring back slavery, enact debtors prisons or bring back tar and feathering, using the process you've outlined?




No, its generally because the firearms in question offended someones delicate sensibilities.

Thanks for all the posts beevul.

I appreciate all of the replies.

Anti-gun forums:
I may get flagged, beat down and called names, but it doesn't really faze me at this point.
We need to move forward and both sides cannot sit there with their arms folded, grunting at each other.
Maybe a few people will agree and hopefully change their views to a more moderate tone.

And what a long post on guns...wow!
I'll bookmark that one for future reference.

Potentially lethal?
I think the gun is the most potential lethal product at Walmart.
Although you may be able to provide a recipe to make a bomb from the fertilizer in the back
But I will agree that we probably view this topic at a slightly different angle.


Oh sh*t! - Sorry to reference GE instead of you.
12th grade universal training is good.
I thought it was a great proposal that could gain ground.

Prohibitionist End?
Gonna have to agree with you here.

Bill of rights.
I got it. Same fundamental rights.

Universal conceal carry.
I'll get it right, one of these days.

Gun free zones?
Unfortunately in a democratic system, some people who voted, will not get their way.
That's where majority rules.
I can understand why a gun owner might be upset.
But I fail to see the larger impact to the general population.
(I can;t imagine someone saying "i'm not going to San Fran, because of the gun free zone, because I have a gun&quot

Democratic voting process.
If you are using a direct correlation, then I guess you are right.
But in all fairness, we could add waterboarding, public executions, etc... j/k
Our voting process may not be the best, but its what we got.
Social morality needs to have an increased impact on our decisions.

We can always petition for a referendum somewhere, what would you like to petition for?

You should check out the archives. Seriously. This argument has been going on since just about the day DU went live some 16ish years ago. I watched and read for the first few years, and decided to start participating in 2004, and I can tell you firsthand, what you see here now is mild and meek, compared to the old days. And, its a bit more abbreviated than it used to be, I can remember a lot of 300+ post threads locked due to length in those days.

Seriously, check out the archives when you can.



So you make your bomb. Its potentially lethal. It is how you decide to use it that determines whether it will be or wont be, just like I said. Just like a gun. Just like a knife. Just like an automobile. Just like a golf club. It is undeniable.



No biggie. I wasn't sweating it, it was just in the interest of accuracy.



I'm not talking about private property here, FYI. I'm talking about public spaces.



I can imagine someone being in a position where they're carrying but are forced to leave the gun in the car because they have to cross some public space where they aren't allowed to carry, as one of their destinations for the day.


Oh, and for what its worth, I don't carry, nor do I have any desire to.

"I will pretend to compromise and am willing, under pressure, to back off on *some*
of my demands (for the moment)-
but not willing to actually concede anything that currently exists"

It must be said in this ones' favor that they are at least smooth enough not to act butthurt
when they got called on it.

To use yet another good line:

"I was born in the morning- but it wasn't *yesterday* morning"

You have an interesting point of view in your replies.

I like the quotes and the in depth analysis.

You may say anything about what you think my motive is.
I guess only I know the truth and you won't extend your trust.
That's fine and expected.

I don't get my feelings hurt often, since I am usually the person who always speaks first.
It may or may not be in line with the mainstream of the forum, but I still say it.
Feelings are self generated(self perceived) and only the individual will determine how they respond to the dialogue.
Basically, I got pretty thick skin.

Good quote.
I like to use " I was born at night, just not last night".
Same premise, slightly different quote.

a politician doesn't like. For example, Olympic style target pistols like the Walther GSP, probably the most common handgun in places like Iceland, is banned as an "assault weapon" in New York and Maryland. As pointed out before, the round the AK uses is far less powerful than the .30-06 Grandpa uses.

Also, three to five times more people are murdered with bare hands each year than with "assault weapons" like the AK or AR. That is according to the FBI UCR.

Long range target shooting. That is what those rifles are developed for.
http://www.1moa.org/
None of the ranges near me are set up or such a rifle. It seems to be more popular in the UK than it is here.
http://www.fcsa.co.uk/
BTW, how many crimes have been committed by them? Since your knowledge of firearms amounts to parroting what some fear mongering ideologue told you, who either was lying or just as informed as you, what business do you have demanding someone, more knowledgeable than you, to justify having something you know nothing about. Kind of pretentious isn't it?

We have had gun control on the federal level since 1927. We have five federal gun control laws. State and local laws have been around since the founding. Harriett Tubman violated the gun laws of Maryland on a regular basis. It was an 1806 law that could be called "possessing while black".

So the discussion on what substantiates an assault weapon would be quite broad and tainted by politicians.
So I guess we won't be able to move a lot of ground on this topic.
OK.

Crime statistics -
Bare hand homicides are 3-5 times more than assault weapon homicides.
So it stands to reason that we could possibly do something to limit the homicides on both ends?
Agree?
Mental health evaluations at the DMV (license registration) is starting to sound like a good starter.

.50 caliber history.
- Interesting to know that they are for target shooting.
- So only allow purchases to people who have the proper licensed training for .50 caliber weapons?
- There seems to be no need outside of target shooting.

Parroting?
I do not know the amount of homicides for the .50 caliber.
But after your explanation, it appears that this gun is for sport primarily.

In addition, if my words sound the same to you, I can let you know, that you sound the same to me.
The same ol same ol - won't take my gun over my dead body stuff.........defend the issue with "guns aren't as dangerous as XYZ"
There is a problem here that we refuse to address and resolve.
Most gun owners are law abiding citizens, I agree, but how do we filter out the few that use the gun for personal injury?

Its not fear mongering that drives my activism, but the preservation of our short lives.
Why would you not want to protect the innocent?
Why would you turn your back on everyone and live out your selfish wants without a care for another human being?

Is it pretentious to ask you to care about how the "sport" you love, is detrimental to other people in our country?
The lack of filters that may stop that one "crazy" from assaulting someone, or killing another?

You definitely know more about the gun industry than I do, however let me pose a situation to you, when the homicide becomes personal, would you change your position? When do you decide to look beyond defending your pro-gun position and reach out beyond to create safer gun ownership for all Americans?

I hope you can open your mind to the possibility that some measures need to be put in place to make Everywhere, USA a little safer.

and you failed to

My "talking points" are statements of fact.

No. In fact, I would become less qualified to advocate public policy on guns for that very reason. That said, a kid in fourth grade class saved his and his mother's lives because he had access to a gun. The abusive drunk for a step dad that was in the process of literally beating his mom to death, not so much. Being white, not part of a gang or associate with organized crime, means that I am less likely to be a murder victim in the US than, say, Europe.
Let me ask you a question, do people have the right to defend themselves? Should they have the best means available? Please, don't drag out the discredited Kellermann "study".
Here is another question. If a rampage killer uses a gun, why are there weeks of hand wringing by politicians and pundits but Kill as many people with car, or even more people with a gallon of gas, it is a local story for a day?
I can point to the law that shows where target pistols like the Walther GSP are banned as an "assault weapon". That is not a talking point. A talking point is simply a PR release that anyone can recite without thought. It has nothing to do with the accuracy.

When I hear a valid argument based on facts, evidence, and reason from your side. Like the "ban pitbull" activists, anti pot, and anti gay marriage supporters, all of the arguments are emotional based and are various logical fallacies strung together. An example of where it actually works would help also. I have an open mind, but I'm one of those people who are convinced only by empirical evidence and facts.

Everybody wants to save lives. Great. I showed my solutions to almost of all murders in the US without banning a single gun. BTW, 8K people were murdered with a gun last year out of a total of 11K. 14K died of heroin overdose. That is one quarter of OD deaths in the US. When are we going to ban heroin? It doesn't matter where you are in the world, if you can get coke or heroin, you can get a gun.

I appreciate your frankness and attention to detail in every post.

I am glad you are very self-aware of your skills and limitations.
You have a better empirical understanding of the Gun Control Policies, than I do. (is this stated better?)

My answers to your questions (although you say I don't have a valid argument, you don't answer my questions.......)
Of course people have the right to defend themselves. (but endanger others)
Of course we deserve the best, this is the USA! (if you got credit, then sign and drive today!)
But in doing so, I would hope you would agree, that not everybody is capable of handling the "best" firearms out there.
This is where we need at least a subtle filter.

Not everyone can handle machine guns. (I'm sure you don;t want to see multiple posts of accidental shooting with machine guns).
Improved training? Yearly renewals on licenses? On specific guns only?
Solutions from the pro-gun side?

Rampage killer questions:
Well, my first thought is that the shock factor of an automatic weapon killing people sells well on mass media.
Can loop that story for hours.Gun control is quite controversial (as you know) so people migrate to the controversy.

My second thought is that it scores political points - as you have mentioned before.

But my third thought is that its about money.
Every time there is a highly publicized mass murder with a gun, and its on mass TV, gun sales will go up across the nation.
Sounds like money for the gun industry and they almost want a high profile firearm homicide on TV, so sales will surge.
Very sad to say, but I believe most decisions in our world are based on money first.

I'll have to work on trolling more information on this subject so my posts won't be called invalid

Ahh - you bring up the heroin opiate issues.
Heroin or any drug is used by our government as trading chips. No time to post links.

There is also legislation in Congress right now to setup funding for heroin addicts.
So a bill that sounds good on the outside actually will send money to the Pharma companies to supply the drugs.
Hopefully there will be alot of success stories about people beating the addiction and not just increased dividends for the Pharma companies.
Unfortunately making money is driving corporate responsibility.

Peace out!

"Not everyone can handle machine guns. (I'm sure you don't want to see multiple posts of accidental shooting with machine guns).
Improved training? Yearly renewals on licenses? On specific guns only?

Solutions from the pro-gun side? "

"Assault weapons" are civilian non-automatics, not machineguns. They are also the most popular non-automatic civilian rifles in U.S. homes. The most common ones are small caliber (e.g. a basic AR-15 is a centerfire .22).

I own an AR-15 myself, a Rock River model with a target barrel, and shoot it recreationally and competitively; it doesn't fire any faster than an ordinary pistol, and is somewhat slower to reload. It is also too way big to conceal, which is probably why rifles are so rarely used to kill people.

Out of ~12,000 murders annually, the FBI says less than 250 involved rifles. (The true number is probably around 270, or a little over 5 murders per year, per state.) That makes rifles, including "assault weapons", the least misused of all weapons in the United States.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-20

The prohibitionists aren't trying to ban "assault weapons" because they are commonly misused, or because they are more lethal than other guns, but because they are the most popular rifles owned by gun enthusiasts. The whole "assault weapon" fraud was intended by its creator (Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center) as a way to build momentum for more comprehensive gun bans, not as a means to address gun violence. Rifle violence is lower now than it has ever been.

Did you know that "assault weapons" (including AR-15's) are legal across most of Europe? Here are a bunch of European sport shooters shooting AR-15's in their home countries: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=189580

Hmmm...interesting that rifle deaths are very low compared to other firearms.

That's an interesting point about including rifles with assault weapons.
Doesn't make alot of sense to me.

So any legislation should remove the hunting rifles from the term "assault weapons".
The only reason I can think of why they would add hunting rifles to the proposed ban, is to jack the numbers up.
"we'll ban over 300,000 assault weapons with this new law" sounds like political hay to drum up support.
Very very interesting.

Its also good to hear that the hunting rifle owners are practicing safety and the deaths are going down.
I'll take progress any way it comes!

No more avoidable gun deaths please.

peace!

Non-automatic, civilian, Title 1, small- and intermediate-caliber, rifles. Shotguns and the occasional odd pistol (like the Hammerli pistols used in the Olympics) sometimes fall afoul of "assault weapon" regulations, but almost all "assault weapons" are simply autoloading rifles with handgrips that stick out.

For example, this rifle (a Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle) is *not* an assault weapon in any state:

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/models.html





This one *is* an "assault weapon" in some states:

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14TargetRifle/models.html



And this one will get you half a decade or more in prison in California or New York:


http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14TacticalRifle/models.html

Here's the kicker: All of the above are the SAME RIFLE. Just different furniture. You could take the very modern looking one at the bottom and swap the stock for the straight wooden one up top in literally 30 seconds. I used to own a Mini-14 myself, and I owned 3 stocks for it; the straight wooden one, one with an ergonomic vertical handgrip, and one that folded for storage. With the latter, it would have been an "assault weapon" under the 1994 Feinstein law; with the former, legal under the Feinstein ban and AFAIK even legal in New York City; and with the middle one, it was a felony in California but legal almost everywhere else. Simply by swapping the stock.

AR-15's, the most popular rifles in U.S. homes, are the same way. Mine looks a lot like this:


http://thrumylens.org/firearms/jumping-into-the-ar-15-world/

but if you alter it a little to accomodate a straight 19th-century-style stock, you get this, which is legal in every state. Again, stock shape. The upper receivers are interchangeable.


http://www.aresdefense.com/?page_id=729

As to hunting, plenty of people hunt with "assault weapons", especially small game, but AR-15's and such are often considered underpowered for deer-sized animals because most of them are very small caliber (most fire .223 Remington/5.56mm, the smallest of all common centerfire rifle rounds). But, one of the nifty things about the AR platform is that you can also get them in larger calibers better suited for deer, like 6.8mm SPC, or (if you step up to the larger AR-10 platform) .243 Winchester, 7mm-08, or .308. The only difference between a "hunting" rifle and a "nonhunting" rifle is whether or not the person holding it is in the woods stalking a deer, or not.

The thing is, though, that "assault weapon" owners outnumber hunters by at least 2:1 (although most hunters also own nonhunting guns, so there's overlap). And gun-owning nonhunters outnumber hunters by at least 5:1.

Very cool pics and detailed information.

It definitely is a problem, if certain weapons are illegal, when changing the stock.

Maybe this could be a national law?
All Ar15s, regardless of stock are considered legal.
Sound good?

Good data and numbers.
Thank you.

Peace!

Have you asked the makers and distributors of alcoholic beverages? How about Big Pharma?


First of all, the NRA is not a producer of firearms. Secondly, the problem of gun violence will not be solved by making "safer" guns. Finally, most efforts to make guns "safer" end up making them much less useful for self-defense, which, despite what the anti-gun pundits would have you believe, is an important and viable use for firearms.

Pharma and Alcohol do get sued, but rarely does it make headlines for too long.
And usually they settle out of court to avoid the media circus.

But you are correct, they are not being monitored enough either.

I understand the NRA is only an industry group, but if their members wanted to lobby the manufacturers for XYZ, then it could be done.

I agree with you that not one issue will resolve this complicated problem.
But if we start with one at a time, then it may be helpful in the end.
If we do nothing, then we get what we have today........

The greatest country on earth cannot control its own citizens from killing each other.........because well ummmm the 2nd amendment.
I know we can do better than this.
The 2nd amendment is a undeniable right, but how do we control the guns from getting to the people that cannot safely handle a gun?

The NRA is not an industry group. That's the National Shooting Sports Foundation. The NRA is a non-profit that represents its membership in advocating for gun rights.


Uh ... no. Because racism, economic injustice, extreme social stratification, and the war on drugs.

The NRA represents the gun owners (more or less)
The NSSF represents the industry group.

Good points.
After posting all day with you guys, I have come to appreciate your points and the deeper issues surrounding gun violence.

I will agree with you that racism, economic inequality, social stratification and the war on drugs would be better places to start.

But I would hope you can agree that we could look filtering out the bad guys from the current good process.
Increase enforcement on current laws would be a good place to start.

I will add --- taxing the rich to increase funding for urban education and infrastructure.

Have a good one.
Peace!

It's been a pleasure talking to you. You seem to be genuinely willing to listen and discuss things. That is a welcome change from a lot of what goes on here.

Absolutely.

first, the UC Davis "researcher" is an MD and a gun control activist. The study was not peer reviewed and would not pass any peer review. Basically, his study had a under grad walk around a gun show and count the number of straw purchases he thought he saw. If you actually read the study, it is a POS.
Under the tenth amendment and the Commerce Clause, the gun law would be about the same as our drug laws. If you look at the Wright Rossi study, you will find that criminals don't go to FFLs or gun shows.

Also, regardless of the press releases put out by the Howard government, which the media copies and pastes without doing any researching it, Australia is not a success story. First, Australia does not have any federal gun laws. Using the FBI definition of "mass shooting" they had the same number before NFA as after, one.
What the National Firearms Agreement did was blackmail the states into making their gun laws more uniform and ban and confiscate registered semi automatic and pump action long guns from licensed gun owners. Every state had licensing and at least two had registration. Tasmania was the most liberal because you could have a full auto with the same license as a semi auto. That had nothing to do with the mass murder often touted about because his low IQ and history of violence would have prevented him from legally owning a gun, and the gun he used was stolen from a police armory in a different state. Victoria State Police to be exact. It did not affect the murder rate because it simply dropped at the same rate it was before NFA. Same with suicide. It still hasn't done anything about the drive by shootings in parts of Sydney and Perth. Still does nothing about organized crime smuggling guns in, or the biker gangs making their own automatic weapons. One in ten guns confiscated by police is the latter. The Australian Federal Police have no clue how many illegal guns there are.
BTW, New Zealand did nothing with their gun laws and had the exact same effect, dropping murder rate.
Here is a pre NFA study
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=160202
I can't find it at the moment, but a study published in a UK criminology journal outlined the failure of the NFA.
If gun control is so effective, why haven't laws stricter than Australia, including compete bans, prevented most of the countries in the world, including our southern neighbor, to have murder rates several times worse than ours? Also, Australia is nothing like the US. They have a different culture with a different crime problem. Most of their murders victims are killed inside their homes, often by home invasions. Ours is mostly criminals killing each other in a few urban pockets. Most of the country is as safe or safer than there. That is why I go back to these causes

extreme wealth inequality
poor and crumbling infrastructure. Flint isn't alone nor the first with undrinkable water, it just made the news.
violent drug gangs
political corruption

Fix those, you fix 80 percent of our murder problem.

There are those who openly advocate prohibition, and Australia was confiscation, so your argument isn't valid. That is simply part of their ideology. the only difference between ideology and religion is the sky daddy.

The most popular handguns are made in Austria and Germany, perhaps you should ask their equivalents. Cars and guns are not the same thing. In terms of safety, gun manufactures have made improvements without any government mandate here or there. The same can not be said about cars.

The consensus of criminologists is that gun laws do not affect crime rates. Every time they are shown to be ineffective, the prohibitionist lobby "just one more law". That is true here as it is in Australia and Canada. Some biker gangs does a drive by with his basement made machine gun in Merrylands area of Sydney, some Green PM will scream for more restrictions on licensed gun owners. They know one has nothing to do with the other, but they don't care. It is about ideology and culture war. Like Bloomberg and the former Monsanto PR flack he hired to create MDA don't give a rat's ass about solutions or saving lives. Their naive followers do, but they don't. When they call fewer gun murders and suicides, although the rates didn't change at all. The means simply change, they call that a success. I don't. When I see them do that, I'm more convinced that it is about personal power and paycheck.

Here is a suggested reading list
http://www.amazon.com/Point-Blank-Guns-Violence-America/dp/020230762X
http://www.amazon.com/Targeting-Guns-Firearms-Control-Institutions/dp/0202305694/ref=pd_bxgy_14_img_3?ie=UTF8&refRID=031J13AJFM1X4A2H4TDS
http://www.amazon.com/Armed-Considered-Dangerous-Peter-Rossi/dp/0202362426/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1319354875&sr=1-1

This is a perfect example of why most of us oppose licensing and registration.

Awesome post, very informative and shed some more light on the Australian comparison.
Thank you.

Although there may not be strong data from Australia, what about the UK? Germany?
Complete bans with very low death to population ratios.
Different cultures for sure, but what can we take away for the USA? Anything?

Very good points on resolving other issues to drop the murder rate.
All so very true.
extreme wealth inequality
poor and crumbling infrastructure. Flint isn't alone nor the first with undrinkable water, it just made the news.
violent drug gangs
political corruption

So if we cannot reduce the firearm death rate due to 80% out of our control.
What can we do with the remaining 20% we do control?

I'm a supporter of mandatory training centers across the nation.
Mental health evaluation - only cases related to severe illness (dementia,etc)
Some states have already begun:
http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/possession-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx


NRA:
I would love to see a program like " NRA increasing neighborhood safety by giving free gun training"
Can they at least acknowledge there is a small problem in the USA with gun violence?
Instead of (forgive me) "its the crazy who pulled the trigger, not the gun" philosophy?
Its called corporate social responsibility.
The gun industry makes millions of dollars off of gun owners, can't they give some back to improve our daily lives?


Guns and Cars are not the same:
Guns are way more dangerous since their design objective is to kill a living thing.

In the end, I can definitely agree with you that it is a political power play and about money in their pockets.
I would prefer to discuss viable solutions and the third book you posted looks to be a great read on how to make subtle judgments needed to craft gun-control policies that will do more good than harm

So what about our safety? How can we filter the bad ones out of the good process.
And then, how do we get the guns out of the urban areas? Buy back program?

Sounds like enforcement is a good place to start as well as the general income inequality seen across the USA.
Hmmm...the solution to this gun violence problem could be to tax the hell out of the rich and turn it over to Education and Infrastructure funding.
You have definitely made me think alot more about who the gun control laws would affect, but I still believe we can subtly change our current laws to make it safer for all, without infringing on the 2nd amendment.

Good stuff!

See here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=189580

Handguns are also legal in many European countries, with varying levels of restriction; Czech and Swiss shooters can own pretty much anything Americans can, while Italians are limited to certain calibers (e.g. 9x21mm instead of 9x19mm). The UK is very much an exception to European gun laws in general, which is why the British Olympic team has to practice somewhere with more freedom, like France/Germany/Switzerland. Still, even Brits can own semiautomatic shotguns of unlimited capacity, high-powered sniper rifles, and even "silenced" firearms, so even the UK doesn't have the level of restriction you are imagining.

I think Japan comes closest to what you are imagining, and ironically Japan has an overall violent death rate (murder + suicide) higher than that of the United States, because of their astronomical suicide rate.

Very interesting link with great videos.

Although I am not imagining a total ban on guns in America, I would like to see some progress in reducing the amount of firearm deaths in the USA.

There appears to be consensus in this forum, that 80% of all firearm related deaths are not due to lack of gun control
Although that leaves 20% that can be done with gun control.

How about......
Better background filters for specific guns?
Mandatory training for all gun owners? Bi-yearly?
NRA sponsored education events to promote gun safety?

I'm full of ideas, so kick out what you don't like and propose an alternative please.

Peace!

I frankly believe it is culture war and ideology. You confuse the terms compromise and concession. More on that later. As always, anti gun types will be back for more. See California.
because the overwhelming evidence is that there will be no lives saved. The only countries I know of that have complete bans, outside of North Korea, are in this hemisphere like Mexico, Cuba, Venezuela, Bermuda, several Caribbean countries. Others are stricter than Australia or UK like Brazil. They WISH they had our murder rate.

No. I said homicides. Any save would be offset by lives saved with a gun. Those actually out number criminal use according to most criminologists. A complete ban would eliminate 60 percent of all gun deaths. That is about 20K people. The down side is that there will be 20K more rope deaths. Remember my rant about Bloomberg et al not caring about lives? Our violent crime rate is half of what it was when all but two states had restrictive or no concealed carry.

Why? How would that affect the black market? BTW, there has been since FDR.
Why? Accidents and negligence is almost nonexistent. Besides, the average rural teenager is actually better trained and more responsible with firearms than most urban police. If you want to discuss training, start there. Cops are also less law abiding and more likely to hit an innocent than a CCW holder.
They and local grassroots groups already do.
What are
You mention funding for ATF. ATF funding isn't the real problem. Throwing more money at their mismanagement won't solve anything, especially since we have US attorneys who refuse to prosecute cases. When local police hand over gang members to the feds for felon in possession, the local US attorney seems to have better things to do. Same with straw buyers, who can get up to ten years, at most will get a year probation. There have been more federal gun crime prosecutions under fucking Bush than now. How about we start with prosecuting the ones they do get?

Speaking of illegal guns. Europe is awash in automatic weapons made in the former Soviet Block, like the ones used in the attacks in France. The machine guns used in the first attacks were purchased at a train station in Brussels. The latest ones were from a "dark web" site in Germany.

Very interesting summation and I will definitely think about the implications.

I can now see, that it is more about current culture and general society thinking that is framing the gun control discussion.
There are alot of misperceptions on the anti-gun side due to the media hype. ( me included, until I allowed myself to be educated)
Yet on the pro-gun side, there are very stubborn people with good facts, that are tired of defending the same ol bs.
This is a tough issue with deep roots but I prefer challenges anyway.
There is a solution here.


80% / 20%
I hope we are agreeing here.
Alot needs to be done on the social scale, economic scale, education and infrastructure to reduce violent crimes and firearm deaths.
I recommend a little polishing to the current gun control laws to specifically reduce deaths related to accidents, homicides and suicides. Maybe we can improve what we have and continue to reduce the deaths.

Background filters for specific guns?
I was just making a proposal.
Sounds like this one is not a good idea.
It was interesting to read up on the FDR law that taxed the guns.
A little Orwellian back in 1934. Control the guns by increasing the taxes to an absurd rate.
And it set a SC precedent, no wonder everyone is not happy about any discussion about a new law.

NRA events:
Very good to hear they support events.
Guess I have not seen any information in my area, but I do live in GA where there are plenty of guns to go around.


More good information on the lack of indictments for federal gun crimes.
So the DOJ will prosecute more whistle blowers than Bush, but allows more gun criminals to walk away with a slap on the wrist. Whoa.
Something doesn't seem right there.
I am all for punishing people who do not follow our gun laws.
You have sparked another internet session for me to track down why they don't do their jobs.

I understand and agree that new gun control laws will not stop criminals from obtaining guns.
This will happen no matter what we do.
But we can prosecute the hell out of them, if they do get caught.

Thanks for posting, you have taught me alot on the pro-gun side and have changed some of my views regarding this subject.

that is true of Canada as it is here.

Again, the majority of criminologists who study the issue found gun laws do nothing, some found they make things worse. Your hypothesis is the view of a small minority.

US v Miller didn't set any real precedent, all it said was that a sawed off shotgun wasn't protected because it wasn't a military weapon. It was also a one sided case, since Miller died and no one representing him showed up. BTW, that same shotgun is "unrestricted" in Canada. Meaning, it regulated the same as a hunting rifle, and any 12 year old, with a minors permit, can buy ammo and walk around in the woods with it without adult supervision. Mom and dad can buy it online and have it shipped right to the house.
https://www.canadaammo.com/product/byCategory/firearms/?keyword=&categories=&filter%5BCalibre%5D%5B%5D=12ga&status=

Here, many of those shotguns are NFA weapons, as would a single shot rifle with a 15 inch barrel.

My compromise on the federal level is to move all but machine guns and destructive devices, as defined in the NFA, to title one under the Gun Control Act. Also we should adopt silencer regulations based on UK, New Zealand, Norway, and France.
I'll give you a shall issue FOID or automatic NICS check with DL, like motor voter registration. Pass the check, a code is put on the DL. Of course, you will have to get all the states to go along with it. While FFLs will check it, since that information will be on the 4473 anyway, encourage individuals to ask and look for the code.
Also, states do a lousy job of reporting involuntarily committed individuals to the FBI.

Your detailed explanations and links are spot on.

I will admit that I was drinking that gun control koolaid but now I can see why gun owners are so defensive about any new proposals.

And for someone (me) who wanted to change a few people's opinions, ended up changing his own.

Your proposals are very definitely acceptable and could be used as a platform for a subtle change.
We must ensure the privacy of the gun owner in all cases.

I got to head home, but awesome conversation.
Thanks again.
Peace!

I think discussions of this nature could find a lot more common ground. When I first started posting on DU circa 2004-2005, I floated a few proposals that I thought might could be a productive middle ground. I don't recall all of them, but universal background checks (with felony criminal penalties for abuse of the system, such as compiling a registry), a tax credit for the purchase of UL-listed gun safes, and such were a couple I remember. There were more.

That was before it became clear that the real goal of the gun control leadership isn't to reduce violence, but to reduce lawful ownership by the non-violent, which is why the #1 priorities of the gun control lobby are banning the most popular sporting rifles, and restricting/banning lawful concealed carry. I think the reasons are complex, and range from elitism at the Bloomberg/Wall Street/corporate-media level (you don't see them advocating to take guns away from corporate security and elite bodyguards, do you? just from the working class and middle class), to a variety of issues on down the line. But the goal is not violence prevention, it is ownership prevention. Just look at California, or what the gun control lobby is now proposing at the national level.

In that environment, compromises such as those I once advocated---or prior compromises that gun owners made, such as the ban on all automatic weapons, the ban on armor-piercing handgun ammunition, requiring a license in order to carry, ownership bans for certain people---become weapons to be used against lawful ownership itself, and until that changes, I think you'll continue to see mistrust of all such proposals. For example, had gun owners ever thought that a veteran appointing a financial representative to help manage his/her Social Security benefits would be later used by the gun controllers to label him/her a "mental defective" barred from gun ownership for life, there would have been a lot more opposition to some of those bills. And when the people pushing "mandatory training" or "safe storage" or "universal background checks" are simultaneously talking about compiling registries, banning and confiscating the most popular guns or else, and outlawing self-defense, it undermines even the proposals that might have some merit.

Thank you benEzra.

I was starting to think I was the only one trying to come to the middle.
I also have a better understanding now of the current holy war on guns.
My opinion has definitely been swayed to supporting some of the pro-gun points.

I like your "old" proposals and they have more detail than my knee jerk solutions.
Good ideas but as you mention, and I have learned, the media and Bloomberg powers are after more than just gun control filters.
What you have proposed is closer to the middle.
What is being peddled in CA and at the federal level is more of a total ban.

Great summary on the current state of the gun control war.
That helps me to better understand the situation and why there was not alot of love for me, when I first posted.

gejohnston also mentioned similar back-stabbing type laws, that were eventually used against gun owners in the future.

Sigh....so I am talking with the wrong people to change direction on this subject.
The anti-gun groups, need to move to the middle and start proposing ways to improve safety while protecting the privacy of gun owners.

I'm glad I posted here, this has been very enlightening, since I must admit, I was drinking some of that dam gun control koolaid and didn't realize it until I came here.

I still believe something needs to get done, but now I realize most of the work is on the anti-gun side to change their ban everything proposals and respect the gun owners rights.

Subtle change could be a good thing, if done properly.