More mass shootings

[Bob_Church 7]

normiss

I continue to miss the people saying they want all guns to simply poof.
.

I just did.

[Bob_Church 7]

A lot of this reminds me of something that comes up on the geeks list now and then. Some of the people on there live in large cities and have been involved with computers from day one. One guy literally wrote OS10 then retired from Apple. The big difference it that there's no fervor here, it's not a debate, just an honest question.
"Why do film distributors still produce DVDs? Everything that's released is available for streaming so who needs them?

They've never been to a rural area where a lot of people are still on dialup and even the broadband tends to be too slow, and they sure as hell haven't ever gone into a Walmart in a small town. If they had they see walls and walls of DVDs with people buying them constantly because for around here it's a very cheap form of entertainment.
I see this same thing in the gun control debates. "Why don't you do this?" when more often than not it's been done for years, but nobody pays attention and it can't be enforced. It's a classic case of "we have to do something, this is something, so let's do this" and it doesn't really matter if it just complicates things without helping. Or even makes it worse, which is pretty much always happens when you make laws that the public will ignore and the government can't enforce.

[Bob_Church 7]

"Same for guns. To have any sort of impact, you are going to have to restrict the rights of legal, law abiding gun owners. People that don’t own guns don’t care how much gun rights get restricted. Doesn’t affect them. They only see an upside to any gun restrictions.

Derek V "

And it's one thing to know who you don't mind having guns and who you don't want to but how to you put that into words so it can become law? Some of them are obvious, no teenager who just got dumped by his girlfriend, no gangbanger who gets his inspiration from hip hop, or some well off guy who's getting old and not dealing with it well. Some loser who has no other way to have his name remembered. But how do you turn those things into law? In the meantime the big 10 turn out over eight million new guns a year so the only way they're going to keep turning a profit is if everyone, even the obviously demented, have a dozen of them. Personally, I think that if we came up with a sane alternative to the War on Drugs most of the people who shouldn't have guns wouldn't be able to afford one.

[billvon 2,994]

>We could more more, but we don’t.

We do, regularly. Look at new laws that are being written to regulate autonomous vehicles. We regularly update laws on carseat requirements for children, laws on texting and distracted driving, laws on motorcycle lane splitting etc. We are fortunate that both sides (generally) work together to pass laws that work, and that they are regularly reviewed.

>Because we, as a society, accept the current of freedoms vs. fatalities from vehicles.

Yes, we do - and that includes a lot of regulation of vehicles. If we took a similar approach to firearms we could see a similar reduction in gun deaths while retaining the level of freedom that you tout when it comes to vehicles.

>Why take away freedoms, when there are other solutions?

ANY legal solutions take away freedoms. Requirements for crashworthiness? Takes away freedoms from carmakers. Requirements for licensing? Takes away freedoms from drivers who don't want to go to the DMV.

It is always a tradeoff between the rights of others and the rights of the individuals. We require licenses because the right of the general public to not be killed by incompetent drivers outweighs the rights of the individual to drive without a license.

Good laws restrict individual rights slightly while significantly improving public safety. Bad laws restrict individual rights significantly while improving public safety a little bit. And if your position is "make sure you choose the former" then I am all for that.

But if your attitude is "a slight reduction in rights to cut gun deaths? FUCK THAT!" then we will end up with more draconian laws that don't work as well - because they will be passed without any cooperation from gun enthusiasts, and they are, in general, better informed than the general public when it comes to gun safety.

And if that's the outcome you want, so be it.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

But if your attitude is "a slight reduction in rights to cut gun deaths?

I don’t see it as a slight reduction. A matter of perspective, I guess.

Large reduction for small to no benefit. For example, the u inverse background check and magazine limit laws that were passed here in CO. A large reduction in freedom for what? 2 unenforceable laws. No thanks.

If the conversation is about reducing firearm fatalities, there are other, better ways than gun restrictions.

Quote

And if that's the outcome you want, so be it

I do not agree with your prediction. You also said the background check law was enforceable. We accept roughly the same fatalities per year from vehicles and refuse to pass dracian measures to reduce them. In fact, I don’t even see that being discussed in this forum.

Derek V

[kallend 2,027]

Meanwhile...

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,994]

>If the conversation is about reducing firearm fatalities, there are other, better ways than
> gun restrictions.

Great! Let's implement them. Nothing will reduce the pressure on new regulations than a downward trend in gun deaths.

>We accept roughly the same fatalities per year from vehicles and refuse to pass dracian
>measures to reduce them.

We DID pass draconian regulations to reduce them. They worked. I listed a bunch above.

>In fact, I don’t even see that being discussed in this forum.

You haven't seen me post anything about vehicle regulations?

[kallend 2,027]

Hooknswoop

In fact, I don’t even see that being discussed in this forum.

Derek V

"A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest."

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Great! Let's implement them. Nothing will reduce the pressure on new regulations than a downward trend in gun deaths.

Agreed!

Your list was not draconian measures, mine is. Limit vehicles max speed to the speed limit for the section if road they are on. Install breathalyzers in every vehicle. Prevent cell phones from communicating in a moving vehicle. These would reduce traffic fatalities. I don’t see a thread, “More traffic fatalities” with links to today’s deaths.

Derek V

[Bob_Church 7]

The comparison of guns and autos doesn't hold up at all. Automobiles are large and we use them on public roads. When we purchase one we have to have the paperwork transferred. None of those things apply to guns and if we added the third it would just be ignored because of the first two.
You probably wouldn't get to the grocery store and back in an unregistered car, but nobody can even guess how many guns you have stashed in your house or what their legal status is. It's way beyond oranges and apples.

[billvon 2,994]

> I don’t see a thread, “More traffic fatalities” with links to today’s deaths.

Right. Because to the vast majority of the populace, the lengthy and comprehensive laws concerning automobiles are doing well to keep car deaths down. That is not the case with gun laws.

[yoink 321]

Bob_Church

"You're simply ignoring factual evidence of the efforts to reduce auto fatalities of ALL ages. "

And you're ignoring a lot of people working very hard to do something about gun violence in the US. Is it working? This is a huge country that's awash in guns, so who knows how bad it would be otherwise? The job won't be finished until there are no more gun deaths, but that doesn't mean we haven't accomplished anything towards that goal and it sure as hell doesn't mean that some people aren't trying.

Who, specifically, are you talking about?

Because I think a LOT of people are very good at being seen to do something (ANYTHING!!) to try and fight gun deaths, but they really have a vested interest in not seeing any successful action be taken.

Once you cure a disease or right a wrong it can't be used as a rallying cry. Dems and Reps alike have no political interest in solving this issue.

[normiss 801]

I've driven a number of vehicles with speed governors on them, and most newer cars have that capability as well.
Same with cell phone restrictions while in vehicles while in motion.

I see nothing but refusal from most gun supporters to do anything near such an approach with weapons, while the Supreme Court does appear to support tighter restrictions.

We DO limit speeds on certain roads you're on, and have penalties for violating them.
We have a few laws somewhat similar for guns and securing them from those that shouldn't have them, but they're very rarely enforced. It would appear we need to tighten those up with stiffer penalties.

Again, we DO put forth a huge effort to reduce traffic fatalities, unlike mass murder of children.
Why this is ok in anyone's mind is beyond explanation.

[Hooknswoop 19]

I’ve never heard of a car that uses gps and a map so that it will not exceed the speed limit.

My cell phone works in my vehicle.

Imagine if all cars had breathalyzers and would start if any alcohol was detected.

We could do a lot more and have a large impact on fatalities. But we don’t.

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Right. Because to the vast majority of the populace, the lengthy and comprehensive laws concerning automobiles are doing well to keep car deaths down. That is not the case with gun laws.

Even though there are more vehicle related fatalities per year than firearm related fatalities?

Derek V

[normiss 801]

OK fine, more dead kids it is.

You're insisting on ignoring the technology that is in place that you're saying we need.
It's already there. From your explanation, you simply don't use it.

Thankfully the support of gun legislation is growing.
We can do better and we will.

[billvon 2,994]

>My cell phone works in my vehicle.

Yep. And you can get a ticket for using your cellphone while driving. Can you get a ticket for using your cellphone while shooting?

And that vehicle you describe needs to be registered. Does your gun need to be registered?

And that vehicle you describe needs to be insured. Does your gun need to be insured?

And before you drive that vehicle you need to have a license. Do you need to have a license to go to the range?

Once you can answer "yes" to all those questions, your comparisons between guns and cars might start to make sense.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

You're insisting on ignoring the technology that is in place that you're saying we need.
It's already there. From your explanation, you simply don't use it.

There are cars that will limit their max speed to the speed limit automatically? Never seen that.

Again, is this about gun control or reducing fatalities?

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

The comparison is that we could do a lot more to reduce vehicle fatalities, but we choose not to. Why? Because we don’t want that much restriction on our freedoms.

This is why the debate never goes anywhere. It isn’t about reducing fatalities, it is about gun control. Here in CO, they passed the universal background check and magazine limit laws. Those laws limited the 2nd amendment and have done nothing to reduce fatalities. You said these laws were enforceable. You were wrong. Now you want to go further.

Derek V

[normiss 801]

There are, there are also car that will get you a ticket based on data from the vehicle based on speed and location.

It's about reducing fatalities from my perspective.
More Americans have died from guns than all of the wars we've been in, combined.

[rifleman 70]

Hooknswoop

Quote

You're insisting on ignoring the technology that is in place that you're saying we need.
It's already there. From your explanation, you simply don't use it.

There are cars that will limit their max speed to the speed limit automatically? Never seen that.

Again, is this about gun control or reducing fatalities?

Derek V

Not hard to find.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/25/technology/ford-speed-limit/index.html

Atheism is a Non-Prophet Organisation

[wmw999 2,447]

Some play-with-numbers. There are about 130 million households in the US (source). Of those, about 36% own guns (source), and over 90% own cars (source). That's one way to look at apples to apples, because in the vast majority of cases, only one perp per event comes from a single household, whether it's guns or vehicles.

So if there are an equivalent number of dead people, then gun-owning households are over twice as likely to be involved with gun deaths as car-owning households are. Maybe there's something to that. There are, of course, counter-arguments, such as that criminals are more likely to own guns, distorting the numbers. But with such a penetration of cars, I'd expect that criminal households also generally have access to them...

Note that while I consider my current gun ownership status to be private for obvious reasons, I've been in a gun-owning household the very vast majority of my adult life, and am not a bad shot. I've never killed anyone with either a gun or a car.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Phil1111 1,149]

Needless to say from the debate in this thread, gun control in the US will not be easy.

There are three good examples of gun control measures on western counties. The UK, where active gun ownership and a hunting tradition have had less penetration into society than the other examples. Mainly because of a more historic hunting and firearm ownership tradition. Ordinary UK citizens may have never handled firearms because urbanization and a rural hunting heritage is but a life in books.

Canada and Australia are the closest similar countries. Although Finland, Sweden and to a lessor extent Germany. Also have a hunting traditions. Australia is the closest to the US for hunting and firearms ownership traditions. It also has mass shootings by deranged gunmen.

What it's Like to Own Guns in a Country with Strict Gun Control
http://time.com/4172274/what-its-like-to-own-guns-in-a-country-with-strict-gun-control/

"I love firearms. I collect them and I enjoy shooting them. I probably have 30 pistols and 20 rifles or shotgun combinations....

Then, after the 1996 massacre, I probably had to hand in six to eight semiautomatic rifles and shotguns to the police. We got fair value for them, but I wasn’t thrilled to be doing it because I thought “Well gee, what have I done wrong?” Would anything untoward ever have happened with the firearms I owned? No....

The police are required to inspect your gun room. Since 1996, the police have inspected mine three or four times. While they can come randomly, they normally put a call through and we arrange an agreeable time to come in and inspect it. I’m happy for them to do it. I want them to see that it’s safe."

When will the US learn from Australia? Stricter gun control laws save lives
[/url]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/14/america-mass-murder-australia-gun-control-saves-lives


Australia's Lessons on Gun Control
The 1996 Port Arthur massacre resulted in legislation that saw a dramatic decline in gun crimes.
[url]https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/australia-gun-control/541710/

Australia provides proof that gun control works. US gun owners LIE about these facts because they point out that gun homicides still occur in Australia. They point out that there are almost as many guns in Australia today as before the gun control measures came into effect.

But they ignore the facts on the ground. The Las Vegas gunman would never have been able to kill as many people with a bolt action rifle. When guns are locked up with ammunition locked and stored separately. Its very difficult for children to get access to them.

Gun owners are no different than drunks. If they arrive home with a BAC of .11 and nobody was hurt. Why should their rights to drink be infringed from doing it again.

[kallend 2,027]

wmw999

Some play-with-numbers. There are about 130 million households in the US (source). Of those, about 36% own guns (source), and over 90% own cars (source). That's one way to look at apples to apples, because in the vast majority of cases, only one perp per event comes from a single household, whether it's guns or vehicles.

There is also the frequency of use factor. Most cars get used at least weekly, and most get used daily.

I suspect that doesn't apply to many guns.

No advanced nation can function at all without easy access to personal transportation.

We KNOW that doesn't apply to guns.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Hooknswoop

I’ve never heard of a car that uses gps and a map so that it will not exceed the speed limit.

My cell phone works in my vehicle.

Imagine if all cars had breathalyzers and would start if any alcohol was detected.

We could do a lot more and have a large impact on fatalities. But we don’t.

Derek V

This argument holds water if the gun lobby was in favour of technological restrictions on firearms. They actually do the opposite and actively fight against even the availability of smart weapons.