Would you give up your guns if it reduced significantly the chance of mass shootings?

Yay or nay? No saying it wouldn't stop it. Yes or no?

Why don't y'all just take guns away from crazies and criminals? Nobodies rights are infringed upon by my guns.

I don't have guns but law abiding citizens getting rid of their guns will not solve this problem.

A resounding

Dreamsglore wrote:Yay or nay? No saying it wouldn't stop it. Yes or no?

With all due respect, you are asking the wrong people. You should be asking the criminals if they will give up their guns. But, no, I won't give mine up because men and women are failed, imperfect individuals that continue to screw up and act inappropriate. There needs to be something between my family and those who will not follow the law. A gun is it.

As long as we have mentally ill people wandering around being able to buy guns, well we need to protect ourselves.

The question is illogical.

I would not give up my constitutional right to own my guns, but I am working actively so that my guns do not end up in the hands of criminals, and that my guns cannot be transported in a vehicle illegally.

Gun control, knife control, and nail gun control simply does not work. However, safety regulations are very effective and should be the focus of addressing gun violence in America. Guns must be safely transported in vehicles which will require proper cases or holsters which are chipped along with each firearm, and a current foid card must provide the inventory of guns a cardholder anticipates he will transport. The fourth amendment must be absolutely protected, and the second amendment must be absolutely protected. We do not want government coming into our homes and telling us what to do with our guns......however, there is no constitutional protection to reasonable regulations when dealing with the privilege of driving a motor vehicle on the public roads. We need to get off this gun control focus, and concentrate on vehicle and gun safety........we can make this happen and save lives.

No ,reason, Democide

2seaoat wrote:I would not give up my constitutional right to own my guns, but I am working actively so that my guns do not end up in the hands of criminals, and that my guns cannot be transported in a vehicle illegally.

Gun control, knife control, and nail gun control simply does not work. However, safety regulations are very effective and should be the focus of addressing gun violence in America. Guns must be safely transported in vehicles which will require proper cases or holsters which are chipped along with each firearm, and a current foid card must provide the inventory of guns a cardholder anticipates he will transport. The fourth amendment must be absolutely protected, and the second amendment must be absolutely protected. We do not want government coming into our homes and telling us what to do with our guns......however, there is no constitutional protection to reasonable regulations when dealing with the privilege of driving a motor vehicle on the public roads. We need to get off this gun control focus, and concentrate on vehicle and gun safety........we can make this happen and save lives.

Not without more expensive and useless legislation.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=armed+citizen+stops+shooting+spree&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Do I think everyone should have the right to own a gun? No, I don't. I think there should be some way to determine whether they are psychologically fit to own them. How do do that? I don't know but I think we have proven we can't just let anyone own a gun. Your rights shouldn't supercede other's right to live.

Dreamsglore wrote:Do I think everyone should have the right to own a gun? No, I don't. I think there should be some way to determine whether they are psychologically fit to own them. How do do that? I don't know but I think we have proven we can't just let anyone own a gun. Your rights shouldn't supercede other's right to live.

I still believe that a deranged person with the intent to carry out a murder or mass murder, will find the means somewhere, somehow. He does not have to be a gun owner. No amount of psychological evaluation would prevent a deranged person from acquiring a weapon legally or illegally.

Would you give up your automobile "if" there were a "chance" that it would reduce the number of DUI deaths?

You don't drink alcohol? Makes no difference.

Could a drunk steal your automobile?

I'm not saying we're ever going to stop totally killings like these but we can reduce them by stricter gun control laws and who has access to them. When any mentally ill person can go and purchase a weapon and are protected by HIPPA laws we put the safety of citizens over confidentiality. We need to choose carefully who can own a gun.Very few killings are methodically planned out but many are in the heat of passion and are preventable.

bghlaw0371 wrote:Would you give up your automobile "if" there were a "chance" that it would reduce the number of DUI deaths?

You don't drink alcohol? Makes no difference.

Could a drunk steal your automobile?

Now you're getting ridiculous. Cars don't kill. It's the drivers and we have reduced the number of deaths by due diligence. We not going to eradicate it but we can try to control it.

Dreamsglore wrote:

bghlaw0371 wrote:Would you give up your automobile "if" there were a "chance" that it would reduce the number of DUI deaths?

You don't drink alcohol? Makes no difference.

Could a drunk steal your automobile?

Now you're getting ridiculous. Cars don't kill. It's the drivers and we have reduced the number of deaths by due diligence. We not going to eradicate it but we can try to control it.

Totally illogical.

Gun/Car Either may be operated by an individual who is drunk, high, or mentally ill, and either may be used to accidentally or intentionally kill others. DUI manslaughter, for example.

Not without more expensive and useless legislation.

Not necessarily. What does not work is talking about gun control.
It is completely the wrong paradigm to craft a solution. The key is gun safety and vehicle safety in my now accused deranged mind. Why is gun control a non starter.....simply you cannot control.....However, improvements to gun safety can and must be achieved.

This idea that we cannot improve on the current totally dysfunctional system, and that anything we do will be more expensive, and useless......well I believe that is incorrect. There are real concrete steps which can improve gun safety and vehicle safety. If someone started the conversation about improving auto safety and used the concept of vehicle control......would we have been able to make the large improvements in vehicle safety in America?

We need to focus on gun safety. This includes better training, weapon safeguards, and clear safety rules which protect the public. Sure Industry folks argued that air bags are too expensive....they argued that seat belts were more expensive......and even child restraints and safety seats were fought tooth and nail.....but never did we talk about vehicle control.....it was always vehicle safety.

We can reduce gun deaths and vehicle deaths by a concerted national effort to improve safety.....I personally believe it must start with vehicles which are so fundamentally different than the world when our founding fathers crafted our constitution.....and where the Supreme Court has said any rationally based classifications is enforceable because driving a vehicle on public roads is a privilege. Say no to gun control....say yes to gun safety.....they both may get to the same place in reducing the loss of lives, but they are completely different paradigms.

Dreamsglore wrote:

bghlaw0371 wrote:Would you give up your automobile "if" there were a "chance" that it would reduce the number of DUI deaths?

You don't drink alcohol? Makes no difference.

Could a drunk steal your automobile?

Now you're getting ridiculous. Cars don't kill. It's the drivers and we have reduced the number of deaths by due diligence. We not going to eradicate it but we can try to control it.

Neither do guns!

bghlaw0371 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

bghlaw0371 wrote:Would you give up your automobile "if" there were a "chance" that it would reduce the number of DUI deaths?

You don't drink alcohol? Makes no difference.

Could a drunk steal your automobile?

Now you're getting ridiculous. Cars don't kill. It's the drivers and we have reduced the number of deaths by due diligence. We not going to eradicate it but we can try to control it.

Totally illogical.

Gun/Car Either may be operated by an individual who is drunk, high, or mentally ill, and either may be used to accidentally or intentionally kill others. DUI manslaughter, for example.

Your argument is illogical because the intent of cars is not to kill people but is for transportation. Under your thinking anything that could kill you should be banned. Guns are used for killing,period. Other countries that have strict gun control laws have fewer homicide's than we do.

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

bghlaw0371 wrote:Would you give up your automobile "if" there were a "chance" that it would reduce the number of DUI deaths?

You don't drink alcohol? Makes no difference.

Could a drunk steal your automobile?

Now you're getting ridiculous. Cars don't kill. It's the drivers and we have reduced the number of deaths by due diligence. We not going to eradicate it but we can try to control it.

Neither do guns!

Oh come on! That's their purpose.

2seaoat wrote:Not without more expensive and useless legislation.

Not necessarily. What does not work is talking about gun control.
It is completely the wrong paradigm to craft a solution. The key is gun safety and vehicle safety in my now accused deranged mind. Why is gun control a non starter.....simply you cannot control.....However, improvements to gun safety can and must be achieved.

This idea that we cannot improve on the current totally dysfunctional system, and that anything we do will be more expensive, and useless......well I believe that is incorrect. There are real concrete steps which can improve gun safety and vehicle safety. If someone started the conversation about improving auto safety and used the concept of vehicle control......would we have been able to make the large improvements in vehicle safety in America?

We need to focus on gun safety. This includes better training, weapon safeguards, and clear safety rules which protect the public. Sure Industry folks argued that air bags are too expensive....they argued that seat belts were more expensive......and even child restraints and safety seats were fought tooth and nail.....but never did we talk about vehicle control.....it was always vehicle safety.

We can reduce gun deaths and vehicle deaths by a concerted national effort to improve safety.....I personally believe it must start with vehicles which are so fundamentally different than the world when our founding fathers crafted our constitution.....and where the Supreme Court has said any rationally based classifications is enforceable because driving a vehicle on public roads is a privilege. Say no to gun control....say yes to gun safety.....they both may get to the same place in reducing the loss of lives, but they are completely different paradigms.

Say yes to gun control and stricter enforcement to lax laws. Gun safety does nothing for deranged individuals.

Dreamsglore wrote:

bghlaw0371 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

bghlaw0371 wrote:Would you give up your automobile "if" there were a "chance" that it would reduce the number of DUI deaths?

You don't drink alcohol? Makes no difference.

Could a drunk steal your automobile?

Now you're getting ridiculous. Cars don't kill. It's the drivers and we have reduced the number of deaths by due diligence. We not going to eradicate it but we can try to control it.

Totally illogical.

Gun/Car Either may be operated by an individual who is drunk, high, or mentally ill, and either may be used to accidentally or intentionally kill others. DUI manslaughter, for example.

Your argument is illogical because the intent of cars is not to kill people but is for transportation. Under your thinking anything that could kill you should be banned. Guns are used for killing,period. Other countries that have strict gun control laws have fewer homicide's than we do.

The type of gun owned by a citizen was not part of the original post. Laws in this country define how an automobile is to be designed and manufactured. In most states, insurance and a valid license to operate any vehicle is necessary to purchase. Different license types are required depending on the vehicle. Passenger car vs. large commercial diesel truck.

Unlicensed persons are arrested and sentenced to various terms in prison when they harm or kill another person during the operation of any vehicle without the proper license, equipment or when they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Clearly define the parameters in your next question.

If you had a child with mental issues... a child that could not show emotion or feel pain, (which should be called sociopathic) a child that is withdrawn, doesn't fit in, has a neurological disorder, often depressed...would you have automatic weapons in your home or any unlocked gun with ammunition available? Would you take the child to a firing range and teach them how to shoot?

Dreamsglore wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

bghlaw0371 wrote:Would you give up your automobile "if" there were a "chance" that it would reduce the number of DUI deaths?

You don't drink alcohol? Makes no difference.

Could a drunk steal your automobile?

Now you're getting ridiculous. Cars don't kill. It's the drivers and we have reduced the number of deaths by due diligence. We not going to eradicate it but we can try to control it.

Neither do guns!

Oh come on! That's their purpose.

That is just one of many. How about those of us that like to hunt? I also own several handguns, but none of them have ever killed. They are used for personal safety. A gun is nothing more than an inanimate object that CAN be used to kill if in the hands of the wrong person. But in and of itself they do not kill regardless of the purpose for which they were designed.

NY and Chicago have some of the toughest gun control laws in the country... yet NY is number one in gun death rate in the country... LA number two... Chicago is number three. DC should be considered a war zone. Why?.. at some point the results need to trump the ideological intent... but Bloomberg wants to export their progressive prohibition policy. Thanks... but no thanks.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6018a1.htm

btw... I agree with the car analogy too... good point.