We have officially become inured to mass shootings.

[theflashunc]

cut and pasted your points below - i already addressed the gun show loophole and background checks for private sales on page 6 or 7. no response from you on that issue, even though i spelled out details as to why that resolution was concerning.

Universal licensing requirements and testing
-- Limits on magazine size draconian - to me. reshaping and dramatically changing the platform is not middle ground to me. magazine size is not the underlying issue here.
-- Insurance requirements for firearms owners agree 100% on this one - would pay annual insurance, if required. would be interested in details - would this be implemented such that the insurance rate is reasonable, or would it be high to act as a deterrent in and of itself??
-- Tracking of ammunition sales would be onboard with this, provided it does not limit quick access and availability nor is it intentionally taxed in order to act as deterrent
-- Curbs on semi-automatic weapon sales "curb" or eliminate 100%?
-- Civil and criminal liability for manufacturers and gun sellers open to this, but as with everything else, details and specifics on how it is implemented and what exactly is liability. do we hold bartenders and alcohol distributors liable for drunks? not sure i see a massive difference here...
-- End of the gun show loophole and mandating background checks for all private sales
-- Mandatory waiting periods for firearms purchases fine with this, provided we enact a process that is reasonable and does not create unnecessary delays in order to act as a deterrent to purchase. 5-10 days works for me, as long as that time window respects me as a law abiding citizen.

for MANY gun owners most of the above is doable. but believe it or not, oftentimes the specific details really are meant to act as a deterrent to ALL gun owners, rather than just limit the nutters from getting them. that is not ok with me.

Of course these are deterrents. They're hurdles to clear so those who cannot and should not have guns don't get them. I'm sorry if they would be an inconvenience. But having a 6 inch hole blown through your torso because you picked the wrong day to see The Dark Knight is pretty inconvenient too.

-- Does James Holmes need to own a 100 round drum magazine? Does anyone? If that gun doesn't jam, who knows how many people die in a room where he killed 12 and wounded 70. 5 rounds tops.
-- Insurance is insurance. Let the market set the rates. If you can do insurance for a car, then we can do insurance for weapons of death.
-- Curb. Paired with other restrictions semi-automatic weapons become less of an issue, but no reason for high capacity semi-automatic, compact rifles.
-- We hold car companies accountable for faulty products, knowingly and willingly sold as defective. We held tobacco companies accountable. Gun manufacturers should be no different when the sole purpose of a gun is to put those aforementioned holes in living things.

But all of these will be nonstarters as usual and people will continue to die and handwringing will continue but people need their fetish objects and the gun manufacturers have a buck to make. Time is a flat circle and the cycle of bloodshed will continue.

[e-RICHIE]

Thank you both for reinforcing my point. I advanced support for neither side yet you both spoke only of what you want not to mention putting conditions on coming to the table. Hence meaningful progress remains stifled. We are all Americans in this and there is no simple solution but for anything to be possible we must lay aside what we want and pursue common ground on what we seek. Which in case you've forgotten is less dead humans.

Fine. I'm sitting across from you at the table. My question is what purpose, what need, what fancy is served when a military style weapon is in the possession of a person who is not going into battle? If everyone had none of these, there'd be fewer dead humans.

[joosttx]

That doesn't make sense.

The only thing that an assault type rifle is good for other than killing people in a crowd is killing packs of wild hogs in Texas. Although some will argue the caliber of bullet is not large enough.

So I guess we should keep them legal. You know for hog killing. (Sarcasm here)

[caleb]

i would also like to point out that you can't lay all the blame at the feet of republicans and conservatives. just because a given resolution gets voted down by the R's, don't think for a minute that the D's don't benefit from this - it gives them additional "ammo" to attack their "enemy", which helps as talking points to continue the dissemination of fear...and fear sells, which helps them consolidate power and money. and while i know they truly believe in gun control, i personally feel they want power and money....far more. and this ongoing argument back and forth does nothing but help them.

Dooode, are you serious? There's an easy majority in Congress today for a long list of gun legislation if McConnell would let it come to the floor.

There's an old idea that sometimes parties want the issue, not the bill. But this is not one of those times for the Ds.

[moondog-sparky]

Dooode, are you serious? There's an easy majority in Congress today for a long list of gun legislation if McConnell would let it come to the floor.

There's an old idea that sometimes parties want the issue, not the bill. But this is not one of those times for the Ds.

you are correct at this point in time - the blame is primarily on the R's. (i can't disagree with this) i was thinking bigger-picture over the course of the past couple of decades regarding a variety of issues, not just gun control. was just pointing out that often times losing an argument has value against the opposition and that blame can't always lay squarely on one side.

again...right now, R's could and should be more proactive on this issue.

i'd still say that it isn't that gun advocates don't want to be proactive on this...it's just the details of the legislation that concern us.

the one sentiment echoed here is the push to define "need" when it comes to AR's. i know speeding, drunk driving, climate change and carbon footprint, etc aren't in the same league of atrociousness as mass shootings, but everyone is dismissive of the question as to "need" when it comes to these issues. would you be ok to enact legislation to address these issues based on need as the primary discussion point? nobody's taking your car or booze of course...but would you be ok having it's speed and enjoy-ability curtailed dramatically? would you be ok with the government limiting your house size because of energy required to run it? limit the size of your family's carbon footprint? heck, your family size...? believe me, those days are coming and the approach we take with liberties like guns & others will be utilized against you, me, us.

sure, not the same argument, but definitely the same approach in terms of enacting legislation to get a desired outcome - and limiting civil liberties to do so. if you can honestly tell me you'd be ok discussing any of the above arguments and have to define and justify your need for those things, then i'll be far more open to discussing the kinds of gun legislation many on here would like to see...

[sk_tle]

How do we address the issue about the law abiding gun owner becoming a nutter?

[moondog-sparky]

Of course these are deterrents. They're hurdles to clear so those who cannot and should not have guns don't get them. I'm sorry if they would be an inconvenience. But having a 6 inch hole blown through your torso because you picked the wrong day to see The Dark Knight is pretty inconvenient too.

-- Does James Holmes need to own a 100 round drum magazine? Does anyone? If that gun doesn't jam, who knows how many people die in a room where he killed 12 and wounded 70. 5 rounds tops.
-- Insurance is insurance. Let the market set the rates. If you can do insurance for a car, then we can do insurance for weapons of death.
-- Curb. Paired with other restrictions semi-automatic weapons become less of an issue, but no reason for high capacity semi-automatic, compact rifles.
-- We hold car companies accountable for faulty products, knowingly and willingly sold as defective. We held tobacco companies accountable. Gun manufacturers should be no different when the sole purpose of a gun is to put those aforementioned holes in living things.

But all of these will be nonstarters as usual and people will continue to die and handwringing will continue but people need their fetish objects and the gun manufacturers have a buck to make. Time is a flat circle and the cycle of bloodshed will continue.

we do NOT hold car companies accountable should someone misuse the car from it's intended purpose...but you already knew that. defective cars that break or induce accidents, yes. but not if a defective person abuses a car. right?? i spent 3hrs at the range yesterday and didn't put a single hole in any living thing. and i shot with purpose (and enjoyment!). the sole purpose argument is simply disingenuous and unfair.

[jclay]

...but would you be ok having it's speed and enjoy-ability curtailed dramatically? would you be ok with the government limiting your house size because of energy required to run it? limit the size of your family's carbon footprint? heck, your family size...? believe me, those days are coming and the approach we take with liberties like guns & others will be utilized against you, me, us....

To all of the above, absolutely.

It's a necessity for survival.

We can't grow the world (or national) population, resource consumption or economy forever. How we address the challenges of those sorts of problems I will, thankfully, probably not be around to see. Concord on how to address them will be mind bogglingly difficult but failure to do so will make this a very nasty place in which to live.

As to semi autos? Get them out of the population or know that we will live with the demonstrated and obvious consequences which will only get worse as stressors increase.

And I'm still off the back....I just felt like this particular City Limits sign merited a short sprint.

[j44ke]

I thought it was hilarious that McConnell was like no way, no action on gun control no how, I'm on vacation relaxing with my broken arm. And then an angry mob showed up in his front yard and he was like hmm, maybe gun control is a good idea....

But all this is meaningless really. There are already so many weapons out there, how is any legislation going to do anything about it? Make them all illegal and the government is going to have to go collect them all. That's going to work just fine.

BTW, the "need" argument is also meaningless. The government regulates things that people need all the time. Well within its purview constitutionally. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are all heavily regulated already.

I think the government should just tax the fuck out of weapons and ammo, like they do liquor and cigarettes, except enact a property tax as well as a sales tax. I am sure someone smarter than me could figure out a way to create a sliding scale of taxation so that weapons rated a danger to society could be heavily taxed while guns that are more likely to be used for hunting are less taxed. So you can have one, but it will cost you. And if you can't afford to keep the ones you already have, there would be a forgiveness policy if you turned them into the local authorities.

And then any state that creates gun regulations that match a federal template gets a share of the money collected from the tax.

[e-RICHIE]

I think the government should just tax the fuck out of weapons and ammo, like they do liquor and cigarettes, except enact a property tax as well as a sales tax. I am sure someone smarter than me could figure out a way to create a sliding scale of taxation so that weapons rated a danger to society could be heavily taxed while guns that are more likely to be used for hunting are less taxed. So you can have one, but it will cost you. And if you can't afford to keep the ones you already have, there would be a forgiveness policy if you turned them into the local authorities.
.

I like this idea.

[sk_tle]

tax the ammo much more than guns. Collectors can still keep their precious toys.

[theflashunc]

we do NOT hold car companies accountable should someone misuse the car from it's intended purpose...but you already knew that. defective cars that break or induce accidents, yes. but not if a defective person abuses a car. right?? i spent 3hrs at the range yesterday and didn't put a single hole in any living thing. and i shot with purpose (and enjoyment!). the sole purpose argument is simply disingenuous and unfair.

We have held companies accountable when they've knowingly sold products who either through defect or intent harmed and killed people. Whether that's Firestone tires or RJR. I won't play the what-if game to death other than to point out that companies elsewhere have civil and criminal liability concerns that gun manufacturers are explicitly shielded from. Wonder why they went to those lengths to lobby for such protections?

What other purpose does a gun serve? What was it invented for? Kicks? Sport? Really ornate paper weights? Or to kill living things. It's a weapon of violence, plain and simple.

Adam Lanza did nothing but shoot at a range until he walked into Sandy Hook elementary. Same with Seung-Hui Cho. And Elliott Rodger. And a laundry list of other spree killers.

I get it, going to the range is fun. But people are dying en masse.

[moondog-sparky]

We have held companies accountable when they've knowingly sold products who either through defect or intent harmed and killed people. Whether that's Firestone tires or RJR. I won't play the what-if game to death other than to point out that companies elsewhere have civil and criminal liability concerns that gun manufacturers are explicitly shielded from. Wonder why they went to those lengths to lobby for such protections?

What other purpose does a gun serve? What was it invented for? Kicks? Sport? Really ornate paper weights? Or to kill living things. It's a weapon of violence, plain and simple.

Adam Lanza did nothing but shoot at a range until he walked into Sandy Hook elementary. Same with Seung-Hui Cho. And Elliott Rodger. And a laundry list of other spree killers.

I get it, going to the range is fun. But people are dying en masse.

last try here... we do hold car companies when their autos designs and implementations fail and kill people (especially when the companies are aware of the problem). we do NOT hold car companies accountable when individuals behind the wheel (& who purchased the car on their own) go crazy and use the car as a weapon, or drink and drive, or speed recklessly. please tell me you see the difference here.

when guns as a tool fail and don't go boom properly, gun companies are held accountable. guns aren't generally defective...people are. please, please tell me you see this difference.

[caleb]

the one sentiment echoed here is the push to define "need" when it comes to AR's. i know speeding, drunk driving, climate change and carbon footprint, etc aren't in the same league of atrociousness as mass shootings, but everyone is dismissive of the question as to "need" when it comes to these issues. would you be ok to enact legislation to address these issues based on need as the primary discussion point? nobody's taking your car or booze of course...but would you be ok having it's speed and enjoy-ability curtailed dramatically? would you be ok with the government limiting your house size because of energy required to run it? limit the size of your family's carbon footprint? heck, your family size...? believe me, those days are coming and the approach we take with liberties like guns & others will be utilized against you, me, us.

Yes, I would welcome it.

In fact, like @jclay, I don't think it can come fast enough.

There are ways of addressing drunk/distracted driving, emissions, and population size (to take the issues that you mentioned) that could make progress on our real problems without reducing our quality of life. I think we should pursue all of them. I don't think we're faced with a dichotomous choice between our current libertarian dystopia or lurching into a Stalinist authoritarianism, as so many who would like to annihilate the possibility of collective action would have us believe. We can instead use government like Americans did for most of the 20th century as a way of reaching collective decisions and crafting policies that make our society better.

[monadnocky]

.... would you be ok to enact legislation to address these issues based on need as the primary discussion point? nobody's taking your car or booze of course...but would you be ok having it's speed and enjoy-ability curtailed dramatically? would you be ok with the government limiting your house size because of energy required to run it? limit the size of your family's carbon footprint? heck, your family size...? believe me, those days are coming and the approach we take with liberties like guns & others will be utilized against you, me, us.

Yes, I would, to all of the above, as I believe in the notion of social contract. "Those days are coming"... well, I certainly hope so, as we are facing a number of crises that literally threaten our very existence. Those words, for me, do not fill me with foreboding. Rather, I believe that, done constructively and through good policy based in science, we can extend basic freedoms and social justice to all.
Again, to add to the complexity - as I have stated before, I am a firearms owner, but believe in MUCH stricter laws pertaining to firearm ownership.

[jclay]

But all this is meaningless really. There are already so many weapons out there, how is any legislation going to do anything about it? Make them all illegal and the government is going to have to go collect them all. That's going to work just fine.

Going to the moon took decades of consistent, national effort with public support. Getting any class of firearms out of society will take no less commitment and effort. Consistent, long term application of big sticks, big carrots, public relations, education, etc is the only way. Or capitulate and know that things will only get worse as environmental and societal stressors are exacerbated, as we see them doing.

I think the government should just tax the fuck out of weapons and ammo,

Doesn't address your point above. I think it's totally unworkable. Hell, making black market weapons is reasonably do-able; making black market ammo is only easier.

This is real simple; we can't have our cake and eat it too on this sort of issue. The narrative needs to change and we need to take a good look at who we are or we'll keep on going down this road.

And people look at me like I'm crazy, or wonder WTF I'm even talking about, when I say that we're still very much a frontier mentality society.

[zachateseverything]

last try here... we do hold car companies when their autos designs and implementations fail and kill people (especially when the companies are aware of the problem). we do NOT hold car companies accountable when individuals behind the wheel (& who purchased the car on their own) go crazy and use the car as a weapon, or drink and drive, or speed recklessly. please tell me you see the difference here.

when guns as a tool fail and don't go boom properly, gun companies are held accountable. guns aren't generally defective...people are. please, please tell me you see this difference.

Is a semi-automatic weapon with replaceable and high capacity magazine good for anything other than mowing down scores of people? Not particularly. A car careening into a crowd of people is a bug. A gun killing people is a feature.

[jclay]

...but would you be ok having it's speed and enjoy-ability curtailed dramatically? would you be ok with the government limiting your house size because of energy required to run it? limit the size of your family's carbon footprint? heck, your family size...? believe me, those days are coming and the approach we take with liberties like guns & others will be utilized against you, me, us.

No offense intended but the mere existence of alarm at the notion of putting limits on resource consumption, family size and such as that, in an age of obvious limits to the carrying capy of the planet, as the population passes 8 billion, as we poison the planet with untold chemical and physical pollution, as deforestation proceeds at breakneck speed, as frozen areas of the heat engine we live on start to change phase, as we continue to run species off to extinction, etc, etc, etc, tells me that we are well and truly doomed. We're going to wreck this place just as sure as the sun rises in the east. And I still mean no offense but how any modern, educated human being can fail to see it coming as clearly as a locomotive bearing down on your piece of junk...no, I mean Classic, 1964 TR4 that just stalled on the RR tracks makes my head spin. Maybe I'm one crazy MFer, which would be fine with me if it meant that none of this was happening, but I just don't get it.

I'm in my early 60s. I used to think that even if I lived to be 90 I'd die before things started to go terribly sideways (which is a hell of a crappy way to assuage ones fears about these sorts of subjects); both older brothers always disagreed. I'm starting to think they're right. But even if not, even if it takes longer, it seems terribly obvious that the flight plan we're on isn't going to end well. And it's the same for this gun thing, which of course will get worse as other aspects of life deteriorate.

Man, I'm going to have a beer, or something.

[mjbabcock]

last try here... we do hold car companies when their autos designs and implementations fail and kill people (especially when the companies are aware of the problem). we do NOT hold car companies accountable

I have to have a license to drive one, I have to have insurance (and that insurance pricing is linked to my risk profile), I register the thing every year (and in PA I had to have it inspected), I can't drive a Formula 1 car or a M1117ASV on the public roads, There is specialized licensing for the truly massive ones (CDL, etc.), CDL drivers have strict restrictions on their use and reporting requirements...the car analogy fails in this circumstance.

If anything, it's like people recognized that motorized vehicles could do harm, and we built regulatory infrastructure to try and keep us safe. Look at how long and deliberately we're rolling out self driving cars. With guns, we seem content to run our country like Afghanistan or the Democratic Republic of Congo.

As an aside, I was watching a Vietnam documentary the other night and recalled how the horrific images coming out of embedded reporters turned public sentiment. I was struck wondering if we shouldn't be producing images of bodies torn apart by assault rifles. It's something we are obviously not doing right now with mass shootings, and I think it lets politicians divert attention away from the horror. Then again, we had a picture of a baby drowned at the southern border that did little for our collective public will...so I'll repeat my initial sentiment. We're fucked.

[moondog-sparky]

No offense intended but the mere existence of alarm at the notion of putting limits on resource consumption, family size and such as that, in an age of obvious limits to the carrying capy of the planet, as the population passes 8 billion, as we poison the planet with untold chemical and physical pollution, as deforestation proceeds at breakneck speed, as frozen areas start to change phase, as we continue to run species off to extinction, etc, etc, etc, tells me that we are well and truly doomed. We're going to wreck this place just as sure as the sun rises in the east. And I still mean no offense but how any modern, educated human being can fail to see it coming as clearly as a locomotive bearing down on your piece of junk 1964 TR4 that just stalled on the RR tracks makes my head spin. Maybe I'm one crazy MFer, which would be fine with me if it meant that none of this was happening, but I just don't get it.

I'm in my early 60s. I used to think that even if I lived to be 90 I'd die before things started to go terribly sideways (which is a hell of a way to assuage ones fears about these sorts of subjects); both older brothers always disagreed. I'm starting to think they're right. But even if not, even if it takes longer, it seems terribly obvious that the flight plan we're on isn't going to end well. And it's the same for this gun thing, which of course will get worse as other aspects of life deteriorate.

Man, I'm going to have a beer, or something.

jclay...just to clarify...i'm in agreement with you 100% in terms of the planet and environment being a key issue going forward. i'm not a science doubter (i'm a geologist by training) and i agree it needs to be front in center in terms of the coming decades and centuries. sustainability as the population continues to pop upwards worries me to no end.

just was curious if everyone in here would practice what they preach in terms of enacting legislation that limits their lifestyle. seems like many will, which surprises me. in general, i would as well...but the devil is in the details as to who decides, when, and how much.