What you are missing is the implicit assumption, on the part of many people, that semi-automatic rifles, such as AR-15s, are military assault rifles. They are not. Military assault rifles, such as the M-16 and AK-47, are fully automatic and cannot be bought (with the exception of some collectors, I believe). Many guns are semi-automatic including many pistols and shotguns. Any meaningful discussion regarding firearms should start with an accurate and honest description of what is available. Trying to flame the discussions with misleading terminology is pointless as it detracts from the real issue of mental health.

It would help the debate greatly if some of you knew the difference between an assault weapon and any other weapon. If you are referring to an automatic, machine gun type weapon, then there is an existing law banning civilians from purchasing them. If you are talking about a semi-automatic weapon such as a pistol that loads a round into the chamber, one for every pull of the trigger, then you are barking up the wrong tree. You will never/NEVER remove semi-automatic weapons from Americans. I have a russian made bolt action rifle that comes with a bayonet. It fires one bullet at a time, is over a hundred years old and has a wooden stock that I can replace with a modern plastic stock if I so desire. Some would call it an assault weapon. It is a Russian military surplus weapon. I have never fired it, but originally was going to use it for deer hunting.
Liberals consider ANY weapon that is used against another to be an assault weapon. Therefore, an old fashioned revolver/six shooter would be considered an assault weapon.
In California, you can not purchase semi-automatic pistols with magazines of over 10 round capacity. Anywhere else you can purchase the standard 16 round capacity magazine. Apparently, marksman in CA are worst shots than anywhere else so mass shootings are non-existent due to restrictions on magazine capacity. What a wacko world we live in.

As has been noted previously, assault weapons are not generally available to the public. An assault weapon is a fully automatic weapon, i.e. a "machine gun."

What you are calling an assault weapon is a semi-automatic rifle. There is a huge and important difference between the two. It would really be nice if you had your facts correct. You might also want to do some actual research on the NRA and weapons before you restate "stuff" that others also incorrectly state.

I did not see this before I also responded. You did a nice job.

The number of deaths due to driving while on a cell phone is equal to the number of alcohol related deaths in this country? I'd like to see where that statistic comes from.

Everyone seems OK with the idea that alcohol has too many political and business backers but the same people want to fight the NRA who seems to be the sole voice for gun ownership. And, the NRA is not against all gun regulations. They have supported many reasonable restrictions as would the vast majority of gun owners.

:thumbup:

Getting back to the subject of the thread, "what if gun control laws were changed" I would like to submit this question. What if any change to the existing laws would you make that would actually make a difference in violence in America? I am really interested but will not consider banning guns as a safe alternative.

Point: The UK banned all handguns and they have more than twice the violence we have per capita. Statistics also seem to indicate that there is less crime in areas that have concealed carry laws. SO, the question still remains what would you change that would have a positive effect?

Are you going to give the gov nanny more charge over deeming who and who's not mentally stable?

How about we just quit jumping the shark every time there is an incident?

At this rate this thread could exceed the thread on striping mmps :)

I cannot adress the changes that could affect gun violence until it is acknowledged that we have a societal problem that results in and or contributes to violence that incorporates a gun.

Without adressing the permissives we have in our society there will be no impact on the violence. Using the hypothesis no more guns in the USA with no availabilty, with no changes to the so called entertainment business that portrays rampant rape, murder, disemboweling, dismembering and general chaos regularly there will be no impact on the violence except it will be done with other than guns!

There will have to be a major change in the rules of enforcement and rules of engagement for law officers and the courts.

:agree: .... That's exactly the way I see it. The subject also seems to be the defining line between conservatives and liberals. So, it makes good politics for some, especially the liberals that can use guns as defining the big bad ultra right wing conservatives. It helps them prove that we are hate mongers, and at war with everyone from blacks to women to old folks, etc.

I wish when a crime is reported, it would also be reported if the gun was purchased legally, if the person has a license to carry.

It seems to me that whatever the laws bad guys and looney tunes will be able to find guns with which to kill people. Frankly, I am far more concerned about certain countries run by looney tunes which now have or are gaining access to nukes. They will will be able to kill millions at a pop.

The recent murders were using guns legally purchased according to the news. I don't know if that is going to make any difference to the dead. I doubt if it makes a difference in the grand scheme of things. The kid had some serious mental issues and probably would have used a pressure cooker bomb if the guns weren't available. After the Oklahoma bombing, there were strict laws put into effect governing the purchase of fertilizer. Seriously. The only viable solution is to detect the deficient gene in the fetus and abort it. Being facetious again.

Common Sense Gun Law Changes
 

There are over 14,000 gun murders each year in this country and doing nothing about it should be unacceptable to all! Doing nothing when you're murder rate is 10 times higher than, for example, Japan, is not an option. The amount of firepower allowed to be possessed by the average citizen for protection or hunting should be limited. Failing a background check at a gun dealer and being able to walk across the street and successfully buy a gun at a gun show makes no sense. Does it? All guns should be registered (like automobiles) so that they can be tracked in the event of a crime. Is this not common sense? Will these changes not have the potential to reduce street crime in this country? If not please explain why not??

I'm sure that convicted felons and other criminals will be the first in line to register their stolen or black market weapons.

And in answer to the last question, no they will not. Now if some would like to have a discussion about how to produce laws and regulations that in fact PROFILE the bad guys, let's have at it. When ever there is a shooting some folks who do not like or do not understand gun ownership by the good guys are always inspired to do something and it is usually aimed at the good guys.

Today's permissive attitude, not hurting anubody's feelings, invasion of privacy attitudes and not wanting to get involved or implicated are all working against coming up with any meaningful changes that will adress the bad guys and those who should not have a weapon. Until that changes there will be little more than just talk as there has been for many, many MANY years on the same subject.

:agree:

You are throwing numbers about like they are getting out of control, when in fact they are less in proportion than many other countries. You compared them with other countries, so don't blame me for correcting you. Numbers can be manipulated to suit the view you want it to project. In an earlier post, I showed how out of 218 countries, the USA didn't even place in the top 100 in violent crimes per capita.

My question to you is, what would you do to prevent these from happening. Because none of what you suggested would have mattered to the recent mass shooting. The perpetrator apparently purchased his weapons legally. Most of you have never been to a gun show, so you do not even understand how they work. All the dealers at the gun shows are required to fill out paperwork for a background check of the customer and there IS a wait time before taking possession of the weapon. Contrary to the lies passed about by those that do not know.

Once again, I will ask you the question that cannot be answered. What would you change to prevent these killings?

Let me give you my answer that has proven to help a little. More concealed carry permits and less gun free zones. WHAT!! Yes, gun carrying citizens that are trained and qualified in handling guns safely and knowing the state laws, are a decent deterrent. It won't stop all of the crime, but it has proven to lower the crime rate. It will deter crimes of opportunity, but it won't stop crimes perpetrated by the mentally unstable. You are not going to prevent the actions of the unstable unless you can diagnose the mental illness and treat it early. Almost an impossible task.

You can't get rid of the guns
Registration identifies the gun but won't stop it from being used
Limiting the amount of guns one can purchase won't stop killings
Gun free zones won't stop killings. In fact, it makes it easier.

Taking guns away from good people just makes it easier for bad people with guns to commit crime. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Your only protection against bad people with guns are good people with guns.

And remember, diagnosing mental illness might stop mass killings but it won't eliminate drive by shootings, shooting in conjunction with robberies, and gang related shootings.

So, instead of using guns as a political argument, liberals need to find some other RIGHT to control. The first amendment seems to work well for them. Attacking free speech and the war on the church seems to go well for the left.

Interesting point revealed by a study:

Comparing murder rates and gun ownership across countries - Crime Prevention Research CenterCrime Prevention Research Center

There is no correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates.

AND, when compared with 128 countries, America is below average in homicides per capita.

Just suggesting that we don't need to rush out to pass more laws every time we have an incident.

Actually, statistics from 2013 are that there were approximately 33,000 deaths by gun in that year. Of those approximately 21,000 were suicides and a small percentage were accidents and justifiable homicide. That leaves about 10,000 homicides. I don't know how many of those were murders but that's irrelevant.
Ten thousand people is .00003% of our population. Is that a lot?

You state that our murder rate is 10 time higher than Japan. Even if that's true, you're not stating the murder by gun rate. The definition of murder in both countries also needs to be considered.

Only about 3% of criminals who use guns in their crimes obtained them legally.I agree that sales at gun shows need to be regulated, but that's still not going to stop criminals from obtaining guns illegally. More laws are not going to stop crazies and criminals from getting guns.

Also interesting is that Honduras where the citizens are prohibited from owning guns has the highest murder rate in the world. 83% of those murders are committed by gun. It seems that banning guns is ineffective.

If we are going to prevent deaths with more laws, why focus on small numbers?

There are roughly 23,607 deaths associated with influenza a year. The spread of the disease can be reduced through vaccination. Do you think there should be a law requiring everyone get a influenza vaccine? Have you done anything about the 23,607 deaths a year?

Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including nearly 42,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure. Do you think there should be a law forbidding anyone from smoking? Have you done anything about the 480,000 deaths a year?

I am guessing you have done nothing about those issues and your interest in 14,000 deaths a year is purely related to dramatization by the media.

More gun laws are not going to stop nutjobs from killing, taking guns away from everyone will not stop nutjobs from killing.
You are wasting your energy, go get a flu shot and save somebody's life!

Hitler thought it was a great idea to take everyone's guns. How did that work out?

:thumbup:

GunCite: The Myth of Nazi Gun Control

Check your history. More historical research does need to be done in this area though.

The following is not intended to cast aspersions on any of the good people of Talk of The Villages, but rather is a characterization of the gun debate in America. All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I'm smarter than you are. Are not! Are too! Are not! Are too! Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Democrits (Hypocritical Democrats) and Republican'ts (Nothing can be done). Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Not an assault rifle. Not an automatic weapon. Let's just call it "The Thing That Goes Bang A Lot and Lot's of People Are Dead After It Does, and Is Designed Not For Sportsmen, But Purely For The Taking of Human Life." Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

LIBERAL, LEFT WING, SOCIALIST! CONSERVATIVE, RIGHT WING, FASCIST! Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

It's your fault. No, it's your fault. Is not! Is too! Is not! Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

I don't know the answer. Neither do I. Maybe if we do everything it will change. No, maybe if we do nothing it will change. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. :shrug:

God, we know with absolute certainty that this is going to happen again........and again, and again, and again. Please bless the innocent whose lives have been taken, and the families who grieve for them. Please forgive those of us on both sides of this debate for not finding a solution. And please God, most of all, do not let my family be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Amen. :pray:

Start by enforcing the laws we have making it more difficult and admit that no one is after the gun of a sane law abiding citizen.!! No one!!! Doing nothing shows irresponsibility!

And doing something/anything just to be proactive, does not always work out well either. I am not one that believes that a bad deal is better than NO deal.

This part not in reply to your comment:
The best way to resolve this issue is to allow good people to be armed to protect us from bad people. There are not enough cops to go around so that everyone can have their own personal security. Protect yourself. If others are scared of you because you are able to protect yourself, that is their problem. Actually, it makes it less likely that you will ever have to resort to using your protection. You are not going to eliminate crime in the U.S. or the world but you can lessen/limit the damage. If a nut job starts shooting up the place, and a person with CCW intervenes, then the damage is limited.

Would you take guns away from COPS? Away from the military? Where do you think they get their members? They don't clone them. They get their members from the population. Just regular people doing their best to protect us. Some of you are scared of your neighbor carrying concealed. How do you know that he isn't former military or former law enforcement or both? How many CCWs have you seen or heard of that injured someone by accident? How many do you think are living in the villages? If you knew, you would probably hide in your home and never leave.

Do some research before making false claims about gun ownership and crime. How many crimes are committed using a car? Perhaps if we got rid of the cars, it would lessen the amount of robberies, drive by shootings, mass murders?

That doesn't refute the claim of gun control in Germany though. And it still made it easier for the Nazis to maintain control of the masses. So, it's a moot point.

What a coincidence! I traveled to three town centers in The Villages recently, and "walked the streets at night enjoying the pubs, entertainers, lots of people young? and old. Safe environment, no guns (that could be seen), breath of fresh air!" Actually, I am pretty sure there were many guns in those town centers.

All the suggestions I have seen so far, only benefit the criminal. Funny how sometimes being proactive can be detrimental to the overall objective.

Kind of like having a bad deal not being better than no deal.

:ho: Amen and Amen

"Is there a way to reconcile these divisions? It's hard to tell. I keep coming back to this quote, from the Economist earlier this year in response to the Charleston massacre."

"Those who live in America, or visit it, might do best to regard [mass shootings] the way one regards air pollution in China: an endemic local health hazard which, for deep-rooted cultural, social, economic and political reasons, the country is incapable of addressing."

There are now more guns than people in the United States - The Washington Post

And you know this how? There are soooo many people that would love to ban firearms in this country. If gun control fanatics had their way, police wouldn't even carry firearms.

As long as the NRA is pouring millions of dollars into campaign coffers, there is not going to be any ban on firearms.

The USA is too large of a country to make guns outlawed. In smaller countries such as Singapore, it works very well. Get caught with a gun while committing a crime - automatic life in prison. If a shot was fired - automatic execution.

There are most likely a very few fanatics who would not want police armed but not many gun control advocates feel that way.

To me, I do not see a reason to own a gun. However, if someone wants one, go right ahead and get one. Know how to use it safely and follow the laws.

Of the millions of us tha own mutli milions of guns that is exactly what 99% of us do. But that is not what the special interest, political and anti gun fanatics want to be center stage.

And I do not think the NRA influence or not, what ever it is or isn't.....is not as big of a problem as those who do not not right to privacy invaded (wackos, mentally ill, criminals, etc.), the special interest groups do not want anybody singled out or profiled, the permissive crowd does not want to pick on anybody that is doing their thing, and we certainly cannot profile by color, religion or what ever even if that made a big difference in the problem.

The permissive don't upset anybody society is the major impediment and the politicians and the media make it even worse.

It ain't the guns or the 99% who own them responsibly!

Enforce all you want.
 

The Oregon killer was able to buy his guns legally. Several other previous mass killers too. Even the more strict laws trying to be put in lace would not have prevented these tragedies. People folks people.

As far as I am concerned, anyone using a gun in the commission of a crime intends to use it. Therefore, anyone caught doing so should get life in prison or execution if anyone was hurt in the commission of the crime. I bet there would be fewer crimes committed.
However, you will not affect the mentally ill person with threats of punishment. They are more than likely prepared to die anyway, and often take their own lives when caught.

So, allow anyone a gun unless it is obvious that they aren't fit to own one, and dispose of anyone that misuses the gun. Simple.

You are not going to EVER be able to sort through those that are or aren't mentally ill so you might as well not hurt yourself thinking about it.

Being involved in a gun related incident is less of a chance than being in the path of a tornado. And if more folks carried concealed and there were not so many gun free zones, there would be less people killed by guns. Although, half the gun related deaths or more in the U.S.A. are suicides.

So, mourn those that are killed and get on with life. Thank God that it wasn't you that was involved and do something nice for someone else.

I am from Newtown. I believe one handgun is ok. But tell me why you or anyone else needs to have or store multi military weapons in their home? You are to blame and you are the murderer when the "crazy" person gets their hands on these weapons and uses them. Stop blaming the mentally ill. It's your fault. It will take a long time but we have to do something to control this. By the way, what is your mental status to need to have all these weapons handy.

Much of what this thread revolves around is the issue of mental health. Until the Feds require that states report the names of those adjudicated as having a mental illness, background checks are missing a major piece of information. The form one fills out asks the individual wishing to purchase a gun if they have a history of mental illness - self reporting doesn't work if someone wishes to ignore and falsely report that response.