Is blaming the car a drunk driver uses to run into and kill a crowd of people, the same as blaming the gun a shooter uses to kill a bunch of people?

The same? No, obviously not. If you have a specific point you’re asking about, I think you should explain it. or else this question can be answered in many unrelated ways.

Adding “drunk driver” confuses and dulls the comparison. Drunk drivers are dangerous but they often don’t kill anyone, aren’t trying to, etc. I’m not sure why someone would compare drunk driving to intentional mass shooting.

In general, and considering intentional killing, a competent person could kill quite a few more people more easily and more selectively using guns than they can using a car.

@Zaku You are absolutely correct the drunk driver was not a good comparison,they don’t intentionally strike out to kill and hurt people with their stupidity,thank you for pointing that out.

So let’s get to the point I know of 2incidents that vehicles were used intentionally to kill and hurt as many people as they possibly could ,one in France,the other in Germany, in those cases is it the same to blame the vehicle, the same as blaming the gun,if a gun was used in those cases?

DUH !
What you say ?

In some cases, it may be harder to get a vehicle, than a firearm.

I’ll remove the drunk driver part.

In regards to someone using either a car, or weapon to harm as many people as possible, I always blame the person. That’s the problem. If someone wants to hurt lots of people, and they are determined to do so, almost any method can work.

The examples given, were not in America. So. I feel that the analogy is false, if the OP is making comparison to US shootings. We had the guy in the truck though right? Was it Boston, or NYC?...

Using that analogy, the argument holds water. It’s hard to blame an inanimate object.

The largest scale, and highest casualty event was executed using box cutters. And obviously airplanes. The body count one can pile up, is limited by their imagination/creativity, and ability to execute their plans, not by weapons available…

I am sure you are aware that efforts are underway, and some already implemented, to equip cars with collision detection automatic brakes, remote shut-off devices, and AI controlled self driving systems.
And unlike firearms, vehicles are vital infrastructure components.

The discussion is mostly about banning the type of weapon, not guns in general (although that is part of it for some.). This covers well the difference in damage that weapons can do to the human body.
There are reasons that tanks aren’t available to civilians.

This is a false comparison.

Cars may be used as weapons, sure, but they are not designed as weapons.

The principal design goal of a handgun or a long gun is to kill.

What @zenvelo said.

The primary purpose of a car is transportation.

The primary purpose of a knife is to cut things.

The primary purpose of piano wire is to assist in making music.

The primary purpose of a gun is to kill.

The primary use of poison, is to kill. Yet we add it to our water, and toothpaste.

@SQUEEKY2 Blaming the car and blaming the gun are faulty thinking.

@SQUEEKY2 – I think the issue of who/what to “blame” might be confusing the issue.

It’s my understanding that gun control advocates are not “blaming” guns for killing people. They’re looking at a societal problem and attempting to find a solution to minimize the problem. In their analysis, one way (or even the way) to reduce the number of homicides is to control what types of guns are sold, how difficult they are to purchase, etc.

I don’t think theoretical “blame” analogies really apply here (besides the fact that they’re comparing essential items to weapons).

@MrGrimm888
And Cyanide is freely available in any quantity at your local supermarket.

No I don’t think it makes sense to blame the gun or the car in cases where people kill with them.

On the other hand, I don’t think gun control is properly about blame, but about reducing access to powerful weapons.

yes

but it’s a lot tougher to mow down a crowd from a rooftop with an automobile, or drive through the playground into classrooms slaughtering folks. It’s an interesting speculation squeek, because guns might just outnumber cars, but for the tens of thousands of stolen and illegally operated motor vehicles in the country, how many do you think are expropriated for homicidal purposes?

Yeah, I’ll go along with that…

cars just aren’t as efficiently designed to kill people, and they are SO comparatively inconvenient for the purpose

Difficult to conceal, too.

or tote around 3 or 4 at a time. It is silly to blame guns or cars for killing. I understand that. The question that matters is “can people be trusted with firearms?” The answer to that one is “most can”. An argument can be made that if you issue EVERYONE an assault rifle, those who shouldn’t have them will subsequently reveal themselves and the problem will be solved.

@McGrimm888: Yes. I’d be happy to do away with that as well.

Thanks @stanleybmanly of course it’s silly to blame the tool used in an horrific crime, does that mean there shouldn’t be regulations in place to keep people that shouldn’t have access to them, of course there should be restrictions.
Sometimes I feel I am being vilified for just owning firearms, as you stated most people can be trusted to own and use firearms safely with no threat to the public or them selves what so ever.
I feel like it’s the parent thing all over,I have to scream why we don’t want any children.
I feel I have to scream why I want to use firearms to a bunch that thinks no one should have them.

Hard to conceal a rifle of any sorts @ragingloli .
A handgun on the other hand is a different story.

@SQUEEKY2: “I feel I have to scream why I want to use firearms to a bunch that thinks no one should have them.”

Unfortunately, that is the case. There are thousands of gun-related deaths per year (11k homicides in 2016?). And mass shootings have become common enough that people are fed up. The people who are going to have to answer to “ban the guns” are…the people who want to use firearms (you).

In other words, the burden of justifying your desire to own and use firearms (and particular firearms) is on you – not the other way around.

But any reason I have for wanting and using them will never be justified in their(ban them all eyes).
AS another poster said in another thread there are just as many auto related deaths every year but nobody screams ban the auto.
As even another poster said if you take out the suicides, the gang shooting,and the cop shootings, the actual homicide by firearms per capita isn’t that huge, don’t get me wrong they are still tragic ,and sad, and still more restriction need to be put in place.
I just can’t and never will get on the no one should have them side, sorry.

@SQUEEKY2: “But any reason I have for wanting and using them will never be justified in their(ban them all eyes).”

That may be true.

@SQUEEKY2: “AS another poster said in another thread there are just as many auto related deaths every year but nobody screams ban the auto.”

Beyond irrelevant. It’s also a tired argument that won’t hold up against anyone wanting any kind of gun control.

@SQUEEKY2: “As even another poster said if you take out the suicides, the gang shooting,and the cop shootings, the actual homicide by firearms per capita isn’t that huge, don’t get me wrong they are still tragic ,and sad, and still more restriction need to be put in place.”

The gun homicide rate per capita in the US is off the charts. It doesn’t compare with any of the other industrial countries at all. And taking the roughly 16k suicides out of the stats also doesn’t work, because there are those who feel that since guns make suicide easier, that would be reason enough to reduce them. So, “put in place”, the U.S. gun violence looks even worse.

@SQUEEKY2: “I just can’t and never will get on the no one should have them side, sorry.”

Honestly, my lists of interests and concerns ranks gun control near the bottom. But when I see people resist even the most reasonable of gun control measures, it leads someone like me to feel that the only solution might be complete removal of guns from the population and police. Note: I’m not proposing this. I have faith that there is enough activism and energy that something will happen. It’s not necessarily my fight, but there are those for which it is. And that’s not a bad thing.

You’re setting up a straw man to argue with @SQUEEKY2 . No one – either on here on in RL America – at this point is saying take away everyone’s guns. People are just looking to enact serious regulations that will make homicides less common. Not sure why that is so hard to understand.

Because in a lot of cases that is not what I am reading @janbb .
even you are saying it, no one AT THIS POINT is saying take away everyones guns.
WE ALL WANT STRONGER FIREARM REGULATIONS.
NOT BANS!!
My heart sinks for the victims of any homicide not just the ones that a firearm was used, but the media plays up the firearm ones to no end.
Is it any less tragic if someone is stabbed, beaten, hanged,runover,ect,ect?
NO, they are all senseless and tragic.
AGAIN I want stronger firearm laws, but not bans,and both sides better find a middle ground.
Or nothing will get accomplished and these gun murders will just go on.

@SQUEEKY2 You misunderstand me, perhaps deliberately. I meant at this point and going forward from now on.

When any non living object is used to kill, that object is not at fault. The person is the only aspect of the equation with intent. Fault lies with intent.
Fault also lies with not taking proper measures to protect ourselves and our youth.
Outlawing all gun ownership is ridiculous to expect as a viable solution.
I see no good in making bump stock alterations.
There are, in that regard, some changes which ought to be made in manufacturing and marketing.
However, there are far more changes needed in our schools and school system.
Individuals must also take more responsibility for their surroundings.
While living in Reno, I visited the hotel casinos frequently. Aside from the freebies they offer locals, my daughter and I enjoyed the buffets, and the arcades can be a blast. On one average visit, my daughter pointed out a large, unattended suitcase. I had paid no attention, but it was in an odd location. It was nowhere near the lobby or any of the rooms. Nobody was near it. I contacted security, and they were quite blasé about it. They took it to without precaution to be identified.
My daughter had spoken up because there were PSAs about reporting unattended packages, etc.
Nobody else had given the bag a glance.
Citizens must stop existing in little private bubbles.

Yes, they are effectively the same thing. We are blaming the actions of the person on the inanimate object. And surprisingly, people with guns and people with cars kill about as many people as each other in the US.

@seawulf575: “We are blaming the actions of the person on the inanimate object.”

You realize that there isn’t a single person on the planet that is doing this, right?

I want to revise my previous comment slightly….

@thisismyusername: “But when I see people resist even the most reasonable of gun control measures, it leads someone like me to feel that the only solution might be complete removal of guns from the population and police.”

I think this should be the goal here. If the anti gun control positions are what we are seeing here, we need to get these guns out of everyone’s hands. Now.

Bars and bartenders are sued (often successfully) for all kinds of stupid things drunk people do. They facilitate in a way similar to the way gun-sellers do.

I’d put my money on lawsuits against sellers rather than manufacturers.

^ I don’t like this. I really hope it doesn’t end up going down like this.

@thisismyusername – those successful lawsuits have made bars and bartenders take their host liability (dram shop laws) seriously and they work much harder to manage people drinking in their facilities.

I hope that a few successful lawsuits (or threats of them) will make gun sellers much more cautious about who they sell to.

I think the litigious attitude in the US is a bit nutty but some of those lawsuits really changed things for the good.

^ What possible chance does a store that sells guns have in protecting itself against the gun being used for killing someone?

Guns are legal. If we want them to be illegal, we need to make them illegal.

The bar/alcohol connection doesn’t work at all in my opinion. If anything, you’re really talking about a liquor store or a convenience store that sells beer.

If it goes in the direction of suing some sporting goods store who sells guns, I’d be more motivated to support the shop owner. And this is a position I don’t really want to be in. In other words, it wouldn’t be an easy way to reducing guns in the US because it would alienate the right and the left, leaving a relatively small minority who are ok with weaseling out of just outlawing guns by not going after the powerful.

@thisismyusername – gun sellers can protect themselves by following the letter of the law when selling. It was amazing to see the difference in bar owner/bartender actions after a few successful lawsuits in jurisdictions I follow. Less serving of the already intoxicated – bar owners pulling car keys – bartenders calling police if they suspected there was a drunk going to a car. Strict application of dram shop laws made a difference.

Guns in the US aren’t going anywhere anytime soon. Who they are sold to can be managed to some degree. Apply existing laws and then strengthen them.

@BellaB – Alcohol is consumed in the bar. Guns are not used in the store. I don’t see the connection here.

Anyway, one of the reasons that I have never been that interested in the gun control debate is that I don’t really have an answer. And it seems like nobody else does either. There are sincere attempts at reducing the absurd levels of gun crime, but they often target vulnerable communities (make guns more expensive, keep mental health database, etc). I would be interested in hearing legitimate gun control solutions that don’t kick the can and make everyone feel like we’re doing something.

Maybe I’m completely wrong, but calls to reduce the AR-15, for example, are great but will have little impact on the gun violence in the US. And when people cite other countries’ success stories with gun control measures, I don’t think they understand that those things might work in a reasonable country. The US is not that.

@Squeeky You simply owe no one any explanation for exercising your right to bear arms. Are you letting all this outrage get to you? We can’t demonize Muslims, immigrants or any other group of people so why would you accept the hypocrisy as a personal burden?

@SQUEEKY2 does not have a right to bear arms; he is Canadian. Canada has restrictive gun laws.. @SQUEEKY2 seems to be opposed to similar laws being enacted in the United States.

I think @SQUEEKY2 sees it like it is. Remember, it doesn’t do any good to shoot the messenger…

We have very strict rules about who can get a driver’s license. The same thing is not true for owning a gun.

Oh for shits sake @zenvelo I am all for similar laws being enacted in the states, what is falling short on you anti gun people, I have stated about a thousand times there needs to be stronger firearm laws in the states,you miss that somewhere?????
What I am totally against is any kind of a ban on firearms that are already in private hands, but I am all for restricting those firearms that are already in private hands!
permits to use,transport, store .
I am all for gun owners being required to have and maintain a firearms license in order to keep and use and buy firearms similar to the one we have here.
Our Government made small handguns prohibited a while back, people that had these small guns could keep them and use them, but if you didn’t have one you couldn’t legally buy one or have one, so I bought one just before the law went into effect and now I am in the group that can legally own one,(I didn’t really need a small handgun but I wanted in under that law)I might find one I do want later in life and now I can.
I am for banning high capacity magazines,BUT NOT ANY KIND OF FIREARM.
One thing I should point out some of my firearms are a super investment, they are going up in value like nothing I have ever seen.
I have one I bought brand new in 1992 for $600 and today that gun is worth $4000.
show me what 401K or bond that has that kind of growth, bet you can’t,
AS @MrGrimm888 has pointed out you anti gun people have set your sights on one type of assault rifle, he works for or with Law enforcement I don’t know which but most violent crimes (violent gun crimes are committed with a piece of crap hand gun) the saturday night style, for the first time in your countries history the Republicans are on the verge of actually doing something about gun control, don’t miss your chance you want sweeping restrictions (NOT BANS) on all kinds of firearms from the evil AR15 to the little Saturday night style handgun.
But most of you probably won’t even read this and carry on with the AR15 has to go and maybe the Rep/cons will ban it and that is all you will get, and they will be happy they did something about gun control.

Oh and nothing will change^ the mass shooters will just change their firearm of choice to something else.
But the AR15 will be gone!
And the Rep/cons will hold their heads high saying look what we did!
This is your chance don’t blow it!

@thisismyusername Of course we are blaming the guns and not the people. Somebody shoots up a school and what is the first thing that comes out? Gun control laws! Somebody shoots up a night club and what is the first thing we hear? Gun control laws! Here’s a clue…there are already laws against those things. It is illegal to shoot people. In many states it is illegal to have a gun on school grounds or in a place where liquor is sold. The people that do these things don’t care about the laws. Yet we focus all our efforts on the guns and almost nothing on the people doing the acts. A gang member shoots another gang member or an innocent bystander. He didn’t buy the gun legally and doesn’t care about the laws. What new gun control law are you going to put into place that will stop those shootings? And those account for roughly 25–30% of all gun deaths. Yet we try focusing on the gun.

And I can honestly tell you that if you want a gun, you don’t have to go to a store at this point. Anyone with criminal intent wouldn’t have to. That being said, the Texas shooter was stopped by an armed NRA instructor, and LEO’s and exmilitary have some of the most extensive collections I’ve personally ever seen, plus high stress jobs. I don’t know the answer to solve it, but if Trump passes new gun laws, get ready for another four years of him.

@KNOWITALL I wouldn’t be so sure about that. If Trump passes new gun laws, he will likely be signing the death warrant for his political career. His conservative base will feel like he threw them under the bus and the liberals are not going to suddenly change their views of him. The liberals will accept a win, credit their liberal congressmen, and go on hating Trump.

@Seawulf Much to the dismay of many here, a lot of us gun ‘nuts’ agree we have to do something. Trump can gain bipartisan support, even if the fringes disagree, he stands to gain more ground imo. Nope, pretty sure this will backfire on Dems, while possibly doing all of us a favor. He’s actually not a dumb person and this is a big turning point for him, I believe. I’ve polled several Reps here and all agree some restrictions would be a good thing and they’d respect him for it.

@KNOWITALL Watch it…you are going against the grain! You are implying that many Trump supporters might be actually reasonable and that few are fringe. You know that doesn’t play well on these pages! Here are the things I have against the gun control issues: they are not fully thought out to attain the goal of reducing the violence, but are geared towards only taking guns from law abiding citizens. Until we admit that criminals don’t care about the law so more laws aren’t going to change anything, we are doomed to failure. And the entire mental health narrative is terrifying to me. First it isn’t that I think it is okay for some psycho to take a gun and shoot up some public space because his dog told him to. But it is what isn’t being said that is worrisome and where that can lead. They (those pushing it and the government) aren’t actually defining what mental health issues are. They aren’t actually defining how to define who decides that it is a mental health issue. They aren’t even looking at what has already been said in the past. Let’s face it, conservatives have stated for a long time that liberalism is a mental disorder. And during the last years of Obama’s terms in office the government was trying to declare conservatives mentally ill. All the discussions are vague and leave it up to each individual in the public to interpret it. If I say “We need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill” it sounds like a worthy idea, but my vision and your vision of what is being said may not be the same. Then we leave it to the bureaucrats to actually act on it. And if they pass a law, it will be worded so vaguely that it will become a tool that they can use to use against those they want out of their way. AND, all this opens the door for equally vague interpretation of “mental illness” to be used in other aspects of our lives.

@seawulf575 ha, when did I ever care about the opinions on this site of MY truth…never!

I agree with you. Diagnosing a mental illness is very much part of the problem, can take half a lifetime to get an accurate diagnosis. In our county, we voted an additional tax to strengthen funding for mental illness. But we also tend to take care of our own a little better than most areas, too, as we’re not big cities like St Louis or Kansas City.

Perception is everything. I believe that whatever is passed under this administration, will be to Trumps benefit, on both sides. Whether it’s of any true significance is debatable, but we’ll see. Frankly, I think these kinds of situations and ‘gun control’ discussions only increase gun and ammunition sales, along with an anti-govt, anti-liberal sentiment. All of which will increase the likelihood of #Trump2020. But everyone will be pacified for a few years until they realize what they’ve done.

@SQUEEKY2 .Yes, I’m a LEO. I don’t work in as bad a place as I used to. But in the impoverished parts of town, where most gun crimes are, the gun is in poor condition, and may have changed owners multiple times, being involved in multiple crimes.

As I said, even the assault rifles used, are cheap knock offs, of a different style than the AR.

Most gang violence, is done hand to hand, or with small weapons like screw drivers, of pad locks on bandannas, or knives.
Weapons of choice for homicide ,by the smart guys, is a revolver. Revolvers don’t eject spent shells. So there’s less evidence.
Yes. A “six shooter,” would be the choice for a low level killer.

There are still a few tech 9’s, and mack 10’s out there. But those aren’t realistic personal carry guns. Most have a sub compact semiautomatic, or revolver on street corners.

Again, they won’t be slinging a $1,000 rifle. Again, minus cartels, most criminals carry the cheapest gun, to get whatever they do done. Knowing that they will/should have to toss/sell it after a while…

I get that @MrGrimm888 what seems sad our gun hating anti gun people DON’T which is quite sad.
To them I am just an NRA loving freak job one screw loose of committing some horrible crime just because I am a firearm enthusiast.
I don’t care why someone wants a rifle like the AR15 shoot mice with it as far as I care,.
As long as they acquire the rifle legally,use and store it safely<that is all I really care about, in your country and mine.

^I agree. And it should require lots of background checks, and/or stipulations to acquire the most potentially deadly weapons.

I still think this is the time to go after all gun control…

Totally^^^ but again the gun haters are fixating on just one firearm, because it’s being all hyped up in the media.
Legal law abiding firearm owners don’t want their guns in the wrong hands ,but still want to enjoy their shooting past time what ever it is,hunting, target,or some other kind of competition.
I still favour a multi tiered firearm license for anyone wanting to own a firearm, with different checks and balances for different classes of firearms.

^Gun laws would really benefit from a total reconstruction. A feat that would require massive public support. I haven’t seen the public support any higher than right now. I hope the opportunity isn’t wasted…

Sadly I think it will be, the gun haters and the NRA are so far apart, with extremes in both directions.
I hope a middle ground can be found and some real working firearm control laws are found that keep guns out of the hands that shouldn’t have them,and yet doesn’t vilify and punish the law abiding people that do want to use firearms.LEGALLY, and safely.

The fact that this 9-year-old was holding a weapon of war played no role in the killing. She is a monster. Uzis don’t kill people, it takes a really fucked up person to pull the trigger. We should have given her the death penalty to deter other 9-year-old girls from shooting people with Uzis. Again the Uzi had nothing to do with this.

Middle ground = bolt action/pump/manual cocking firearms to people with background checks/waiting limits and limits on muzzle energy of the ammunition. All else is banned. That’s a big compromise from a total ban.

That was a freak accident and you know it.
Like I stated both sides are so far apart it isn’t funny, and get the drama up.
You won’t get an much of a ban maybe on the AR15 and bump stocks this is your chance for getting good control measures put in.
But keep concentrating on bans and it will be fought all the way,and not everyone will ,give up the firearms they bought legally for ,so keep the passionate side going and blow it.
You hate guns(we know that) you think no one should have them (we know that too).
But a lot of people like and use them safely, guess what they want better gun laws in your country(I KNOW!what a shock) BUT NOT bans right now you have those people looking for better laws to keep firearms out of peoples hands that shouldn’t have them.
BUT KEEP SCREAMING BANS!!! and you will lose them.
Have you listened to any of the pro gun side??
Multi tiered licensing for different classes of firearms.
Go ahead and ban bump stocks, and large capacity magazines.
Your middle ground is a passionate one, lets find a sensible one.

I debunk a bullshit talking point about “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” using a real-life example demonstrating how guns (not the person pulling the trigger) can actually be the problem, and you’re the one bending logic every way you can to justify the existence of weapons civilians have no business using.

Then you misrepresent my position to be a complete ban, when in fact I propose very reasonable restrictions. I have listened to your justifications for semiautomatic weapons, which mostly consist of not being able to do sports. Except one of the examples you mentioned in a different thread (the biathlon) uses bolt-action rifles so that doesn’t really hold water. You can certainly shoot clay pigeons with a pump-action shotgun.

I give up, keep up the crusade your going to go far.
So it’s up to the firearm haters to justify what firearms civilians can own and use?
You will go far.
By the way there are sports that do require semi auto firearms, but I won’t go into them because it won’t be justified in your eyes.
That Vegas accident is a horrible example, the guy was a trained firearm instructor, her parents wanted her to shoot the gun, the instructor should have realized she wasn’t strong enough to handle it and a sad accident happened ,but of course you gun haters bring it up see ,see this is why no one should have these types of guns.
Now I will bring this up,see,see this is just another reason why I don’t want to be a parent.

@SQUEEKY2 “So it’s up to the firearm haters to justify what firearms civilians can own and use?”

It’s a cost-benefit analysis. If we ban semi-auto weapons and limit the muzzle velocity, clip-size etc. there will be costs for sure. Bevis and his friends can’t have their weekly “shoot as many bottles in less than a minute” competition with semi-auto weapons, which is a loss to society, and Rodney will have to get closer to his prey when he goes hunting because his bullets will travel slower, and he may not get to kill as many deers per year, which is also a loss to society. But then there are probably some pretty significant gains too. Like little Suzy won’t be murdered and can grow up to cure Cancer (obviously I’m being a bit hyperbolic)...

So when we total up the pros, and subtract the cons, we’re left with an objective analysis of the costs/benefits to society of semi-automatic firearms. I think the math is pretty clear.

Carry on your white horse a waits you.
You guys think the NRA are total nut jobs by not giving an inch.
same goes for the other corner.
First time in history the Rep/cons are actually on the verge of doing something about gun control,and you gun haters are going to blow it.
Sad.
Instead of sweeping restrictions on all firearms, licensing gun owners, and banning certain components, no just scream ban on half the firearms already in private hands,yeah that will work.
Cause the math says so.
You guys are going to blow your chance at real sensible gun control,because like the NRA you want extremes.
well I will let you at it,good luck your going to need it.

@SQUEEKY2 There are many who think a total ban is the way to go. I’m very much to the right of that position. There are many who believe in a total ban on handguns, I am also very much to the right of that position. You can try to paint my position as extreme, but it’s very much a compromise from a full-ban. 44% of Americans support a ban on semiautomatic weapons. That’s a mainstream position.

I didn’t say a full ban now did I?????
I said a ban on half the firearms already in private hands, some of these guns are very valuable,others are family heirlooms ,handed down generation after generation and you think people will just give them up?
YOU don’t get it I want stronger firearm laws in your country, but bans any kind of bans are extreme I know you don’t think so but they are.
And I should thank you for allowing the law abiding firearm citizen for keeping half their guns?
When you totally shrug off any idea of licensing,gun owners.
Look you gun haters have to come very forward and show theNRA they need to give an inch as well.
Or nothing will get done .
The Rep/cons will MAYBE ban the AR15 and bumpstocks and then hold their heads high.
saying look what we did for gun control.
Unless you gun haters get with it,you are going to lose this chance PLEASE don’t blow it.

I’m a gun enthusiast. I would be more than happy to register all of my current/future weapons.

I would be happy to pay twice the price, and wait twice as long to buy a firearm, if it would have REAL effects on reducing gun violence.
Deep background check required for semiautomatic. I’m fine with that. If you want to own a destructive thing, meet in the middle, and allow some investigation into your life.

All the extra costs, can be built into the tax on each weapon.

Waiting period, increase in background checks, huge increase in funding for evaluation of a potential gun buyer, increased scrutiny on large gun/ammo purchases etc.

That is a good starting point.

Laws are supposed to be in place to protect the people from misuse, not to punish the innocent with unnecessary laws. I think we really need to remember that in these conversations. Reps are generally okay with changing age limits on new purchases, banning bumps, etc… No one is even considering a ban or registry, which is unrealistic.

^I get your point, but I don’t see increased gun control as punishment. I see it as responsibility. It’s not responsible gun enthusiasts’ fault, but our nation is awash in gun violence. If illegal immigrants reported crimes against them, the statistics would be worse than they are.

I remember a speech Obama gave(, sadly I don’t remember which mass shooting it followed)where he said (not quoting here) I know that increased gun control won’t stop all of these mass shootings, but what if we stopped just one?
That really made me think. I felt selfish for not supporting any bans. I don’t think bans, are a realistic solution, but Obama was right about one thing. We could probably stop at least one mass shooting. I wager the families of the victims of these mass shootings would give just about anything to get their loved ones back.

The Florida shooting was especially tragic. Can you imagine losing your child like that? Then finding out that this kid bought that weapon legally. Law enforcement was contacted about this kid. Now your child was violently murdered. Gone forever.

We’ve got to do something.

I noticed Walmart and Dick’s have voluntarily raised their age requirement to 21.
It seems at least some merchants are trying to be more responsible about their sales.

I agree that WE have to do something. Citizens everywhere should be more attentive to their surroundings, and who is showing red flags. It is a responsibility of all to look out for their own communities.
Law enforcement needs to give more attention to tips when they do come in.

Raising the age of someone to legally purchase a firearm is a great start.
Everything @MrGrimm888 has stated is sensible,(NOT PASSIONATE) and is realistic.
For real firearm enthusiasts a lot of firearms stay in the family for decades handed down, I have a beautiful functioning Browning shotgun I got when my Grandfather passed away, to me it’s something that will always remind me of him, to gun haters it’s just a gun that can kill and no one should have it.
Also a great deal of these firearms are very valuable and increasing in value very fast another thing that is lost on gun haters..
The gun haters want to much, the NRA want nothing,
Time to come out of your corners and start advancing toward the middle.
Or nothing will get done and more horrific shootings will continue.

@Patty_Melt A lot of these nut jobs are reported to the authorities, BUT the authorities claim they can do nothing until a crime has been committed.

One example the freak job that shot up our parliament building a while back, an Islamic extremist was kicked out of his church for showing signs of being too radical reported to the authorities,and they said they could do nothing until he committed a crime,and I remember people blaming his community for not doing anything about him,what more could they have done!!

@SQUEEKY2 . Thank you for seeing what I’m getting at. I’m sure that there are more restrictions that I would be open to as well. As long as they are realistic, I’m open to at least discuss some changes that might be an inconvenience to me, but ultimately make a real change in gun violence.

I am not against an inconvenience, especially if it helps to keep a firearm out of the wrong hands, you should see the hoops I have to jump through just to have mine here in Canada.

I am against bans that gun haters spout.
Not against laws that work.

So I will ask the question again: Most of the gun murders in this country are done by gangs and not with guns that were obtained legally. Even the kid in Parkland obtained his gun legally. So I will ask…what does the gun control law look like that will suddenly make the gang-bangers want to start following the law? Or that will make someone that really wants to kill others not be able to find some way to do it?

@Seawulf None, because they will find a way or create one.

NONE, they will find a way.
But a bit better gun law might make it harder for these nut jobs to get a gun in the first place, and that is a glimmer of hope.
But in reality it will no doubt just punish the legal law abiding firearm owner, and do little if nothing to put a real stop to these shootings.

There have been ban scares various times in the past. I know rural living people with caches hidden away that would equip many many, if needed.

That’s just it any ban would cause good people just to hide their guns, a ban of any kind isn’t the answer but the gun haters think it’s the only way that will work.
you need laws that will work, not just turn good people into criminals.

I agree with both of you about gun control not reducing the murder rate. God Himself could not reduce the murder statistics in a land where the guns outnumber the people.

I would like to see stricter punishment for those who actually use their concealed weapons. I think it’s becoming a real issue. Some people who carry, feel like they can engage anyone, and just pull their gun when over matched. A gun is a last resort. It should be the furthest thing in someone’s mind to pull their gun. I have seen some traffic issues, and parking lot disputes turn into gun play. That’s not ok.

At this point, I’m more afraid of a untrained moron trying to shoot it out with a mass shooter, than an actual shooter…

@MrGrimm Agreed. A gun doesn’t make you a cop, and most people realize that. Always call 911 first and if you can’t prepare gor charges. Not sure why people don’t get that by now, we see it in the castle law all the time.

^Yeah. I see some laws, as legalized street crime. Not cool…

I don’t recall who, but there was a comedian who has said to just raise the price of bullets to $500. each.
Hunters will go to the trouble of make yer owns, but most murderers haven’t that kind of patience.