More shootings.

[Brian37]

So...the manufacturers of firearms are all selling the guns so we gun each other down? What sense does that make? I mean that's what you're suggesting the intent of all gunsmiths is. And, I dunno who most of these individuals are...I have a fairly extensive group of friends who are into guns along with myself...none of them are willing to give up ANYTHING just because some other assholes are killing people. Do you have a source you can cite on this? Because I sure as fuck have no inclination towards giving up ANYTHING of my own just because some psychotic dickheads are using firearms of their own to murder others.

NO, I am saying that it is a climate, not a conspiracy. Just like our 30 year downtrend in economic stability was not caused by one single person or group, but the climate. Much like a hurricane needs certain conditions to occur.

Again, gun manufacturers are like any other business. They are not about to go out of their way, unless a force(society or law) acts on them, to deliberately reduce the demand of their product.

But the fact remains that on average 32 people die every day because of use of a gun. Those are facts not in dispute. Now again, if you cannot see that as a problem, I cant help you. But sitting there crying "I'm not giving up anything" isn't going to wash. It is a selfish attitude. Your rights end where my face begins.

If if if if if if if if if if if if if if if the climate were reducing gun death instead of allowing it to be so big, this would not be an issue. But "me" does not mean we should be the wild west just because.

Poor poor Dirty Harry needs his Magnum otherwise big bad gubment will get him. Missing the point that this is an epidemic issue, not a rights issue. I really don't think you can face many people affected by any type of gun death and spew the absurdities you are using to cry "poor me". You can try, but I doubt you'll get much sympathy.

"I didn't do it" "don't take it out on me", isn't the issue. You are using those as excuses to be selfish yourself. What would you suggest other than "more of the same", because what I am getting from you is exactly that "more of the same".

Please give me some suggestions other than "me me me me mine mine mine mine" because by this time tomorrow your "me me me me" status quo attitude (maintaining current attitude as far as climate) will allow the conditions for 32 more people to be killed with guns.

[CapnAwesome]

But the fact remains that on average 32 people die every day because of use of a gun. Those are facts not in dispute.

Actually I think that's the fact we've been disputing this whole time. Especially the because of part.

In other news: dead horse still being beaten on.

[The Grand Nudger]

Drugs and gangs indeed. When's the last time you heard of two 7-11 owners getting into a firefight over who got to sell slushies on what street corner? Wonder of wonders, prohibition in the here and now panned out exactly like it did the last time we went that route. Organized crime, disorganized (but well armed) violence.

People who feel compelled (or are encouraged) to engage in illicit trade are generally left with nothing other than illicit means to protect such "business endeavors". The hand that kills is often the hand that feeds. An uncomfortable (perhaps too uncomfortable to confront directly - for some), but nevertheless present situation in our society. I wonder how much of our gun violence might be chalked up to human beings fighting (as they always have) over resources? I doubt that removing their firearms would have as pronounced an effect as limiting their ability to compete for that resource by means of violence (decriminalization of illicit drugs, for example). People would most likely still shoot and/or murder people, but they would have one less reason to do so (however transparent or ill-concieved that reason may seem to the rest of us).

@Brian
In any case, what's been offered thusfar in many of these threads.
Enforcement of existing regulations, standardization thereof, expansion of regulations at the state level.
Broader access to healthcare (specifically mental health)
Addressing economic engines of violence (gun violence included) like illicit drug trafficking/trade and long standing social inequality.

Golly gee, looks like a lot of good suggestions have been put forward, or you know, we could go with "herp derp guns R bad". All the while insisting that those who disagree with us are selfish murder-enablers as we gladly belly up to the corpses of victims and the specter of their family's grief as though it were carrion. Is it completely inconceivable to you that we might be able to address this problem without creating another? That we can both curb our murder rates and preserve our rights? Please tell me I won't have to be the optimist in this conversation for long, because I'm really not that good at it.

[A Theist]

Meanwhile, In The News: Good guy with gun stops bad guy with knife...outraged knife control advocates demand stricter regulations on knives...

A citizen with a gun stopped a knife wielding man as he began stabbing people Thursday evening at the downtown Salt Lake City Smith's store...Police had high praise for gun carrying man who ended the hysteria. Lt. Brian Purvis said, "This was a volatile situation that could have gotten worse. We can only assume from what we saw it could have gotten worse. He was definitely in the right place at the right time."

http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios...CM9dQ.cspx

[Creed of Heresy]

And the emotionally-charged replies of people basically surrendering because they realize they can't win and their points are naively moot comes in. I've seen this elsewhere...where have I seen it...where, where, where-

OH RIGHT. THEISTS.

Fuck's sake, people, don't go stomping off like angry children, sit the hell back down and discuss this with me like grown adults. Grown, non-theistic adults.

To try to encourage this, let me clarify my stance, so we can start from there again.

My arguments about the illegal acquisition of firearms [if you ban them they'll still circulate] is NOT in the realms of stricter regulations. Ryantology put up a "ten gun restrictions" thing in another gun control thread and I'll go ahead and find and post a link to it, as well as my point-by-point "yay/nay and here is why" reply, I thought it was rather well-constructed and reasonable. I am for both gun control, and for gun ownership. I DO want a safe medium. Making it more difficult to purchase, possess, and utilize a firearm overall? A good idea. Guns are dangerous things in the wrong hands. Hell, even in the right hands, if those hands are not prepared and responsible, they can be dangerous things.

So, what would I like to see? Scrutinous background checks that are federally mandated; none of this Texas Lone Star yeehaw cowboy bullshit where you get a gun with every purchase of whiskey. You wanna buy a gun? Then you submit to a criminal history background check. I would even go so far as to suggest a psychological screening so that anyone who is schizophrenic but has a clean background cannot own a firearm, because schizos are, I'm reluctant to admit, more likely to snap later down the line and kill someone. Which would mean I would have a very, very difficult time buying firearms but if it prevents things like this...THEN I would say...go for it, as long as mentally, emotionally healthy, law-abiding individuals don't need to pay an extraneous penalty themselves.

I would also like to see mandatory licensing and registration of firearms and certification of persons owning and possessing firearms. You must take three 2-hour gun safety and maintenance classes and pass a test at the end that includes demonstrating how to properly store, disarm, and safety a firearm to the class instructor in order to become certified. And certification is necessary for any possession of firearms. This certification must be renewed yearly, albeit no need to take the class, only the test and demonstration, unless you fail one or the other in which case you must turn over your firearms to authorities to be held until you pass the test [can be retaken within 24 hours], after which your guns will be returned to you. Also during this re-certification, all registered firearms [and ALL firearms MUST be registered] must be submitted to an inspection...ALL of them. Failure to bring one or more firearms to inspection means an INSTANT loss of license and the confiscation of any registered firearms. Resale of firearms to unlicensed purchasers and/or without evidence of the transaction [no cash sales, there MUST be a paper trail!] is a Class D felony. You can resell firearms to a licensed dealer, as long as you do it with electronic means.

With these measures in place, there's nothing more you can or need to do as far as gun laws; that is the sweet spot between difficulty of possession and the rights of the innocent. Any further in either direction makes the measures either draconian or insufficient.

Meanwhile, a more aggressive pursuit of illegal firearms trades needs to be undertaken. Divert resources from the useless war on drugs [where 82% of the time, resources, and manpower is directed against marijuana] and turn it to the war on illegal firearms. With the stricter measures in place, guns going from legal-to-illegal is far less likely to happen, forcing criminals to bring in illegal guns from outside the border. With the legitimate-use/non-violent-use market completely secured by the regulated, licensed, and certified commercial gun trade, the only purchasers will be in the criminal element, thus depriving the illegal trade of a HUGE chunk of income, making them far less pervasive and far easier to catch and persecute since their customer base will be much, much smaller and more identifiable.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not too square on the issue of confiscation due to lapse of licensing. It's not like we send a tow-truck for grandpa's cherry red hot rod after his eyesight goes (and he thusly loses his license...or so we would hope). Confiscation of private property is tricky. If grandpa is spotted actually driving his cherry red hot rod...well, then we've got ourselves a solid charge. But so long as it sits in his garage........

I still think that the best way to address ease of procurement is to pinch the pipes from which the water flows, personally. Doesn't matter how easy a time you might have in purchasing a firearm if you just don't have the cash to hand the man at the counter. Gun dealers, whether legal or illegal, aren't exactly running charities.

[Creed of Heresy]

Well I'll be honest once you reach old age you shouldn't be driving at all. Lots of places have private busing systems [shuttles] for the elderly. That should be more widespread, if you ask me but...that's a different issue. We may not send the tow truck for the hot-rod...but grandpa PROBABLY knows his limits anyway. Probably. Hopefully. Guns, on the other hand...certain firearms could be registered as antiques, I figure. But honestly, if you really wish to possess a firearm, taking 30 minutes out of your day once a year to recertify is NOT that big of a problem. And if they're just sitting in your garage and you aren't using them, well, then they secure them. And whenever you want them back, you go ahead and recertify. And if you CAN'T recertify, then you can still sell them to a licensed dealer or procurer. We can't go ahead fooling ourselves that guns aren't dangerous things, and if we're going to actually mitigate the problem, we have to accept the responsibilities that firearm ownership demands, and if we someone can't be assed to spend a half hour recertifying...well, then you don't really accept the burden of responsibility. If it's really a problem of "I want it but I'm too old to have it" then have grandpa give the guns to, say, his grandchildren if they're licensed and interested. Stays in familial possession, it's a sort of keepsake being passed down and, really, is 80 year old grandpa gonna really need to keep them anymore, anyway? The value of having it still exists if it's being passed down, after all...perhaps all the more for becoming a sort of family heirloom.

And pinching the pipe...do you mean, like...the price of guns? Cuz I dunno if you've noticed or not but they're not exactly cheap as it is. Someone buying a gun for genuine reasons of self-defense, where they have a legitimate reason [not a middle-class suburban soccer mom "GOTTA PROTECT THE KIDS!!" mentality, but a ghetto-ass "I walk down the street without this there's a 50/50 chance I die" mentality], is already going to be a bit hard-pressed to possess a gun...and given that the inner-cities are where the most gun-related deaths take place, and also where illegal gun ownership is at its prime, well...that might be throwing fuel on the fire rather than extinguishing it.

Brian: ...Appeals to emotion? The most common ploy the religious use against atheists, and you're bringing it to bear? I thought you were an anti-theist, not a "stoop-to-the-theist-levelist." So, since you aren't exactly making any real points and seem to just be arguing for the sake of arguing without actually having a reason to it, I am just going to flatly ask you: What is your point, and what is your stance?

[The Grand Nudger]

Grandpa knows his limits with one possession, but with the other is clearly not capable? I'm about to hit the road for a week or so but I'll get back to this one when i return.

"They" confiscate them, "they" secure them. More than a little unsettling. To me, that's the line that we might want to avoid crossing in solving our problem - creating a "they" with the authority to confiscate your property or charging you with a crime via ownership of property - even in absence of it's use - a property, which just so happens to have been woven into the things we call "rights". Whether or not you agree with this particular right, I'd say that's a pretty rough way for a right (or a person who has them) to be treated.

[Brakeman]

So should brinks' armored truck guards carry guns? They aren't cops.

So if a deranged man stalks my teen aged daughter I should be ready and waiting with what to protect her in case he invades our home?

If stricter gun laws bring down the prevalence of armed home invaders to one out of five, is it necessary now for me to accept our fate since I would just be more unlucky than usual? One bad man with a gun can be a threat to thousands.

Having been an armed bodyguard before (short term) with many hours of training, I am not one that the statistics imply that a gun owner is less likely to successfully respond to a home invasion. Should I forgo my license and destroy my guns because other less trained civilians make poor decisions in keeping a gun in their home for security?

One improvement I have suggested is that gun safes should be tax deductible to a fair percentage. Every gun owner I know that has a gun safe, uses it. But most do not own gun safes because of their high cost. It would be in society's interest to have guns secured in homes, enough so that it makes sense to pay a little for it. One could even require ownership of a suitable safe before sale of particularly dangerous guns in order to prevent them from being stolen and used in crimes, or from being taken and used by unauthorized family members. Imagine if Mrs. Lanza had kept her guns in a safe that only she knew the combination.

I don't think the gun rights advocates would balk at such restrictions.

[Brian37]

But the fact remains that on average 32 people die every day because of use of a gun. Those are facts not in dispute.

Actually I think that's the fact we've been disputing this whole time. Especially the because of part.

In other news: dead horse still being beaten on.

It is only a dead horse because gun nutters are selfish. In other news, in realty gun death in America IS and still remains a REAL problem.

That "horse" needs a beating because those who want the issue dead don't want to face reality. So by all means, keep responding and I will keep it in the public eye where it needs to remain until the problem gets fixed.