What if Gun Control Laws were changed?
 

I watched the POTUS speech last night in response to the campus shooting in Oregon.


He thinks that changing laws would lesson or stop this kind of awful event.


I don't.


I think only good people would comply. There are enough guns in circulation that bad people would get them and use them for their nefarious causes. AND that people who need to protect themselves could not protect themselves. If I were the person who had to carry cash to the bank for a business, I would want to have a gun. If I lived in a high crime area, I would want to have a gun.

Depends on how you approach it. This looks like a very long term problem which can only be solved through long term strategies. CBS News on 10/01/2015 had a discussion on prevention through pediatricians in various programs who catch troubled teens in their development of these kind of sociopathic actions. Public health policies seem to be the answers.

It seems like what is needed here are more people involved with looking out for one another rather than technological changes like blocks on rifle chamber clips, etc.

This also applies to the Villages IMHO. Road rage and the like can be curbed by using the same kind of community development educational programs here in the Villages as well. Staying Safe Around Aggressive Driving - Driver Safety - AARP

We need more doctors and health professionals involved in addressing these kind of problems rather than lawyers and politicians IMHO. And more local based approaches rather than those coming from DC.

I am a gun owner and can't imagine not having them. But not making the ownership more controlled is irresponsible.
The good guy bad guy or the silly guns don't kill people argument is worthless.
People with mental problems buy weapons and make long term plans to carry out their craziness. Background checks would help. I would propose to own a gun, you would be required to meet or exceed the requirements for concealed carry. If you can't qualify for concealed carry you should not own one.

We already have background checks. I still don't like the idea of having to be in a government database, fingerprints on file, just to achieve my 2nd amendment right. I have a CWP and I resent the government "allowing" me my right to self protection. That is a basic human right in my opinion. Requiring background checks, finger printing, license and license fee are "infringing" on my 2nd A right.

I understand, but for your inconvenience of qualifying for concealed carry gives more in a way of protecting me from you. Again, if you failed to qualify to carry, l don't want you to own a gun. I want more qualified men and women to carry, but less that do not qualify.

Staying Safe is a lesson in street smarts. It doesn't change the behavior of an aggressive driver unless I missed something. Some see street smarts as cowardice. That's the rub.

The gun show loopholes might help.

My brother-in-law Jim was a paranoid schizophrenic but a clever one never saying or doing anything overt that would have allowed my older brother and sister-in-law to put him into treatment in Virginia. Instead, he purchased several Glock type weapons and started hanging out in gun ranges while also thinking that his sister had been taken over by aliens. My brother threw him out of the house a few years ago. He disappeared for a while but they ran into him walking around Burke Lake and he did not even acknowledge them. A few months later he shot himself with one of the guns he had bought at a VA gun show around November 2014. He left his car with many of his belongings in a field with his dead body as he thought he "journey" would continue according to writings found in his apartment by the police.

Jim had spent most of his life in India as a transcendental meditation teacher. His mentor died and he came back to the States. He immersed himself in Death Wish and other very violent movies. There are a lot of red flags here but my older brother and sister-in-law could not get the VA mental health laws to work for them.

I am talking about more community education to prepare family members and others and how to deal with the development of aggression. Lawyers and politicians in my experience usually cause more of this than lessen it. There are exceptions.

Case from my own experiences fighting for practical information for survivors/victims of crimes accessible in libraries. I was attempting to get links to the Florida Victim Services Directory in libraries across FL from 2000 through 2007 or so and beyond.

Instead of meeting my rather gentle suggestions about getting this link and keeping it the Palm Harbor Library Director Gene Coppola had the Palm Harbor Library General Counsel send me a 3-02-2004 Cease and Desist Letter about e-mailing people at the two Palm Harbor Libraries that there no longer was an active link to the Florida Victim Services Directory. Instead, there was on to the Lemon Laws. Coppola was acting more like some politician protecting his territory than an educator and person who is concerned about access to practical information in the community. This kind of politics made us want to get out of Palm Harbor, FL as soon as possible. We moved to the Villages about 16 months after this. I was certainly quite angry about the whole mess.

i sent a pm

Look at the murder rate by handgun in countries where ownership of handguns is prohibited. They are much lower than here in the US.

However, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that private ownership of handguns is guaranteed by the Constitution, so it is law of the land.

Even we, who do not believe it is right, must respect that right.

Likewise, others who do not believe other Supreme Court decisions, have to respect those decisions also - same sex marriage, ACA, etc.

Thanks, Jim was my brother-in-law. I did lose my younger brother Chuck to long term alcoholism on December 3, 2014. That's another problem but one that AA does provide some solutions for if the person is willing to take the 12 step program seriously. Chuck never really did always thinking that he could handle it himself.

AA does seem to be a very successful approach to the problem of alcoholism. The lawyers and politicians went balls up with their solutions in the Prohibition movement. Of course, many of the lawyers and politicians involved also got rich finding and taking advantage of loopholes in liquor laws.

Gracie - I don't believe he, or anyone else, will be successful in getting gun laws changed to where citizens could no longer own guns. There are a tremendous amount of lawful gun owners that would revolt to their 2nd amendment rights being taken from them. It is just another waste of television air time, in which the discussion provides the perpetrator with the attention they desired.

I do believe the media and government / local officials have the power to curb some of these acts. It is more desirable to be known as a villain than a coward. These perpetrators that shoot unarmed (defenseless) people, should be portrayed as the coward they are! Take all the guns away, and these cowards would probably drive a vehicle into a crowd of people (possibly those standing in line for the next "new" phone at the Apple store) to get the recognition as a villain, installing fear in others, the attention they so desire.

IMO, had your brother-in-law been committed and treated for his mental illness, he would probably still be alive. A more thorough background check may have prevented him from from acquiring a firearm, but it wouldn't have prevented him from killing himself one way or another. Sorry for your loss.

I'm with JimT and the POTUS on this one. A better registry is needed. This is not an attempt to deny Second Amendment rights. There are far too many gun deaths here. Better screening might help. Statistics have repeatedly shown that those states and countries with stringent gun laws have far fewer gun deaths than those that don't. Why are people willing to give up their rights for search and seizure and privacy to stop terrorists but scream when it comes to reasonable gun laws?

Actually, Jim was never treated for mental illness as far as I know. He never presented himself as a danger to himself or others under VA law. He was clever enough to never say something to authorities or others that would have had him needing treatment under the law. His rather nutty writings were not found until after he killed himself and the police were going through his things.

My younger brother Chuck on the other hand must have been in mental health facilities to deal with his alcoholism 15 times or more from 1998 onward. He never had any interest in guns, knives, etc.

I would suggest the comparison include more than just gun ownership is or is not. I am not sure how one would measure some of the other factors, but I believe America is significantly more permissive about far too many issues than other countries. As a result of our permissiveness there is a much larger in your face, act like a movie tough guy/gal, drug affected culture than most other countries aided by a 24/7 media and entertainment business that thrives on violence....mostly gun based. Plus some others.

Guns have been readily avaialable in this country since it's beginnings. Many of us grew up never ever hearing about the kinds of shooting taking place today....because they did not exist. Another interesting analysis would be the frequency per year going back 100 years. I suggest without seeing the analysis the closer one gets to the present the more shootings.

I am not sure what it should or could be labeled, but I do not believe it is the availability of guns.....it is a combination of gun availability in a society that condones continuous exposure to unlimited violence, drugs and alcohol at earlier and earlier ages

Strange that the prez mentioned the Oregon shooting but not the 50 shootings in Chicago over the past few weeks...

The guns won't be taken away.Just the ammo.

While many other killings were not specifically mentioned, he did talk about all gun deaths, not just mass killings.

How do you change the gun culture though here in the USA? Our country has a very unique historical connection to guns different than almost any other place.

I got rid of most of my guns etc when we moved from CA to FL in 1995 but I had grown up around shotguns and rifles in Reno, Nevada in the 1970s. There were a lot of hunters etc. in the families' whose kids I hung around with. I got shot in the pinky by one of these kids Tom H., when we were both around 15 with a pump BB gun. The kid was aiming it at my eye and I convinced him to try shooting between my fingers. He missed. There are going to be sociopaths among even the people who are carefully trained on how to use guns. Not sure what happened with the kid Tom H., who put the BB into my pinky. He seemed to be going down a dark road back then. He did go into some kind of mental health facility back around 1973-1974 because of what he did to me. But, I cannot recall what happened to him after that.

How do we stop some of these kids in 2015 in taking dark roads? All the media attention on these shootings seems to embolden people who want to do more damage the next time.

From my post # 16:

"...Guns have been readily avaialable in this country since it's beginnings. Many of us grew up never ever hearing about the kinds of shooting taking place today....because they did not exist. Another interesting analysis would be the frequency per year going back 100 years. I suggest without seeing the analysis the closer one gets to the present the more shootings.

I am not sure what it should or could be labeled, but I do not believe it is the availability of guns.....it is a combination of gun availability in a society that condones continuous exposure to unlimited violence, drugs and alcohol at earlier and earlier ages...."

Your question is a good one. But until the violence exploitation and tolerance environment we allow changes there will be no impact.

ok, the second amendment does allow for gun ownership. This gunman had:


Police say they have recovered four firearms including three handguns and one AR-type assault rifle from Umpqua Community College where a mass shooting took place on Thursday.

I will never understand the need for people to own AR-type assault rifles. The constitution does not specify that. and remember, back when the constitution was written it took a long time to fire and reload.

guns for protection are one thing, assault rifles are another. However, I don't expect any changes. If the killing of little elementary school children didn't change anything, this won't either.

A college/university campus having only one security guard--unarmed--is pure insanity.

Add the illegality of trained, licensed concealed carriers on campus, and it's beyond insanity.

But then, Sidwell Friends School in Washington DC is sure to have armed security forces plus Secret Servicemen, for good reason.

'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'

--Orwell

Background checks are not needed, the US Government already knows who shouldn't own a gun but they refuse to do anything about it. These people have criminal backgrounds, mental backgrounds and violent backgrounds. A good place to start, don't you think? The government wouldn't have to hire thousands more government employees to do the checks either.

Maybe those people also don't smoke as many cigarettes (584,811 deaths in a year from cancer), maybe they also eat healthy (611,105 deaths in a year from heart attacks), they also might not do drugs (40,393 deaths in a year)...Why are people willing to ignore something that takes so many lives, and focus on creating laws that take away the rights of so many, for something that takes fewer lives (Obama states 30 a day = 10, 950 a year)?

Driving drunk accounts for 10,076 deaths in a year, nobody is talking about making liquor illegal...

I will provide the links for the data I presented (unlike some who just spout off their opinions as fact):

FastStats - Leading Causes of Death

Impaired Driving: Get the Facts | Motor Vehicle Safety | CDC Injury Center

In 2013, the US lost 30 people a day to gun violence. Obama shouldn't let us forget | Ana Marie Cox | Comment is free | The Guardian

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...TytQIQ&cad=rja

tell that to the parents
 

tell that to the parents of the Sandy Hook students, Aurora, Virginia Tech, now Oregon......I'm sure it will be a comfort to them

smoking laws have been enacted to curb where smoking is allowed.

drunk driving laws have been toughened A LOT over the years. when the need arose, laws were changed.

it was allowed
 

oddly enough Oregon does allow people with guns on campus:

Students who have proper paperwork are allowed to carry guns on campus. Oregon is one of seven states where lawmakers have said people with concealed weapons permits must be allowed to bring concealed weapons onto campus.

The "AR" rifles are not assault rifles. They are semi-automatic (you have to pull the trigger once per shot) as are many other rifles, handguns, and shotguns. They may look like an M-16, which is a fully automatic rifle, but they are not functionally equivalent anymore than any other semi-automatic gun.

Welcome to the club. Some see CCing as bravado, Rambo complex, and cowardice.

I hope you see the difference in a RIGHT to bear arms and a privilege to drive and smoke in public places.

Why do you think a gun show loophole allowed him to buy the guns? Did he have a record on file with the ATF showing he had been committed or a history of mental illness? If he didn't, then he probably would have passed the background check, assuming he lied on the form he had to fill out. Do you know that the vast majority of gun show sales require a background check? Any licensed dealer at a gun show MUST run a background check, period. In several states there is an additional waiting period after the sale for handguns, even at gun shows. The only guns that can be sold without a background check are personally owned guns an individual is selling to another individual. Yes. They show up at gun shows, but they could also run an ad in their local paper and sell it to someone without a background check.

The way some approach this subject does cause some of us to think along those lines. Personally, I don't think that carrying where it is not needed proves anything at all. It just makea a person look like Dale Evans.


My husband always says that if laws were passed to take guns away from people than only the bad guys would have them. I think he is right. The cows are out of the barn and way down the road.

Could you provide your source for the claim that those states with the strictest gun laws have the fewest gun deaths? I've read just the opposite. I'm equally surprised people would trade their freedoms for safety or the feeling of safety. It's a very disappointing trend with Americans.

IMO, that's kinda like saying, I only carry a spare tire for my car when I think that I'm going to need it.

And I see your assumption that there is this protective place where it is "not needed" as naive. But I don't think you're a hoplophobe just because you don't think anyone needs to CC in TV and those that do are trying to "prove anything". You may not realize your bias against CC, but it is evident in your statements. That is not meant as an insult, so please don't read it that way.

Absolutely right. It ridiculous to go out in The Villages with your concealed gun. Chances are that people carrying them regularly break the law by going into a bar area of a restaurant.

hotheads, too, with guns. How about the guy that got his motorcycle tapped by a car on 466 and he puts several shots into the occupied car? He is still free on bond, I believe.

Maybe carrying a gun would be okay IF you were walking late in the seedy area of Wildwood at night - but why would you be doing that?

As for the government taking your legal guns from you - ain't going to happen. The Supreme Court has made it's decision.

But that's just it.....you WOULD be able to have that gun in that high crime area because you would have passed the stricter gun laws.

We need stricter laws and stricter background checks. As you say Grace, some of the criminals will still get guns....but think about it.....if we can keep just a small percentage of guns out of wackos hands....we will possibly save a few lives, not all; but even one life is worth it.

Also, just as with car use.....once you reach a certain age, there should be testing......a shooting range to prove you are still capable in the use of a firearm.

Chicago, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, started the week with 14 shot in the first 15 hours. Chicago Starts The Week With 14 Shot In 15 Hours

BTW, Mexico has extremely tough gun control laws but its populace experiences a terrible number of deaths by gunshot.

The problem, of course, is that criminals and mentally unstable individuals will still be able to acquire guns no matter the law.

My greatest concern is that folks need to be able to protect themselves, especially in areas where the nearest law enforcement officer may be a half hour away. My second concern is that one of the first steps totalitarian governments take is to deprive their citizens of their guns. I would not like to see that happen in the USA.

I stand corrected, but.....
 

I stand corrected. However, apparently all semi-automatic requires is to just re-pull the trigger--the quickest part of re-shooting I would think. So as long as there's enough ammo....they can fire away pretty quickly.

While all basic firearm actions require the action to be cycled manually before the first shot, semi-automatic, as well as automatic and selective-fire actions, are differentiated from other forms such as single-action or double-action revolvers, pump-action, bolt-action, or lever-action firearms by eliminating the need to manually cycle it after each shot. For example, to fire ten rounds from a semi-automatic or a selective-fire firearm set to fire semi-automatically, the action would initially be cycled to load the first round and the trigger would need to be pulled ten times (once for each round fired).

How many murders do think occur because the perpetrator lacked the proper firearms safety training?