jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (138 posts)

The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is....

  1. LauraGT profile image86
    LauraGTposted 3 years ago

    6,000 highly trained professional good guys with guns, an entire metropolitan area shut down for a day, and who knows how many millions of dollars.  Perhaps we should rethink gun control/rights in our country.  Or at least, pressure the NRA to rethink its mantra....

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Are you trying to draw an absolute from a data sample of 1?

    2. 61
      Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      In the end it took one guy smoking a cigarette to find the bad guy I wonder if it could have ended differently if he had a gun on him?

    3. Mitch Alan profile image85
      Mitch Alanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      All but 1 of the mass shootings in public area in the past 30-50 years have happened in "gun free zones". The "Dark Knight theater" shooting took place in the ONE theater in the area with a posted "gun free zone" policy. There were other theaters that were closer or larger to the killer's home. Why did he chose that one?
      There are already laws on the books that are not being enforced. How will new laws that infringe on "shall not be infringed" by the federal government save even one life?

      1. Zelkiiro profile image83
        Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Oh, how appropriate this is:
        http://www.hulu.com/watch/482882

        1. Mitch Alan profile image85
          Mitch Alanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Except that John Stewart states that Miranda rights are found in the Constitution, but they were, instead, from a 1966 court case. The 5th Amendment states "nor shall be compelled" to give up information, it does not say that one must be told that they do not have to provide information. The 6th Amendment states that they shall be "informed of the nature and cause of the accusation", as someone can not be detained or arrested without cause. It does not state that a person must be told that they can withhold information. This is the reason the Miranda readings are under scrutiny. Many are calling for them to be removed, as they do not directly apply to the Constitution. For now they are the law, but they are not specifically Constitutional as a mandate.
          As to his "quoting" firearm homicide rates, they are way off. In 2008 with a population of approximately 300,000,000 people, there were under 11,000 homicides by firearm. And most were committed with hand guns and not the feared "evil" rifle...while 11,000 deaths is a horrible thing for those involved, it is a very small % of the population and would not be affected by stricter laws on law abiding citizens. Enforce existing laws.

        2. PrettyPanther profile image85
          PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yep, the pretend constitutionalists are very funny people.

          1. Mitch Alan profile image85
            Mitch Alanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            What is a ,"pretend Constitutionalist"?

    4. Seth Winter profile image84
      Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Define "Good Guy"

      Also remember that police, firemen, ambulances respond to 911 calls, not crimes.

      1. suthernglam profile image60
        suthernglamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Good point.

    5. LauraGT profile image86
      LauraGTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      WHAT IF THE TSARNAEVS HAD BEEN THE “BOSTON SHOOTERS”?

      Great article on the different ways we respond to gun versus other violence:
      http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/j … oters.html

      1. Seth Winter profile image84
        Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I can think of one thing that would be differently if it has been "Boston Shooters" Obama would have all the survivors sticking to him like glue...good props are hard to come by.

        1. Zelkiiro profile image83
          Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          My God, an authority figure using a precedent to make changes? THAT ALMOST SOUNDS LIKE WHAT AUTHORITY FIGURES ARE SUPPOSED TO DO!!

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No, it's a politician trying to manipulate emotion rather than arguing from logic.

            1. Zelkiiro profile image83
              Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You're right. Politicians should never play to emotions, and instead use only logic.

              You hear that, Patrick Henry?! HOW DARE YOU APPEAL TO EMOTIONS!!

          2. Seth Winter profile image84
            Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Absolutely right Zelkiiro. That's why it has to be darn right inconvenient that they used pressure cookers instead of guns.  Don't worry it seems like our nation is deteriorating fairly fast, I'm sure you'll get a mass shooting sooner or later to push your anti-gun agenda's

            1. cheaptrick profile image64
              cheaptrickposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I bet there going to ban pressure cookers...there goes my perfect rice...

        2. LauraGT profile image86
          LauraGTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I think Lanza made those parents "props" (I highly object to this word) when he shot their children.  I take it take...  the NRA made them props when the suggested guns have nothing to do with those deaths and that their children would have been safer if there had been more guns in their schools.  I think most parents would do exactly what those parents are doing if their children were shot - installing themselves on capital hill to shame politicians into making meaningful change to reduce the chances that this happens again and then when it does, it harms fewer people.  Obama is doing what leaders should do - putting a human face to the tradegy that occurs when our system is not working.  Our system includes: gun control measures, as well as the mental health system. People keep talking about this, and I think most people agree we need a better mental health system.  The difference is that some of us are willing to pay for it, and some (often the same gun rights folks who are also anti-tax) are not.  Reagan dismantled our mental health system in the 80s and it has never been rebuilt.   Obama is pushing forward gun control AND he is pushing for lots of $ to go towards improved mental health, especially in schools, where funding has been cut severely to address this specific issue. 

          Gun rights folks: What are your solutions re: improving our mental health system and how do you suggest paying for it?

  2. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    I don't know that you can generalize.
    In Seattle today, it took 8 police officers and 4 innocent civilian plus the bad guy's deaths.

    But how do we know the guy is a bad guy? Simply because he has a gun?
    Or threatens to use the gun?
    Or has already used the gun to do bad???
    smile

  3. 82
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    Uh. . .are you looking for a sign that reads "gun-free zone" as an answer?  Maybe we should simply tell bad guys with guns to stop, or we could say please.  Maybe if we ask nicely, that would work.

    1. LauraGT profile image86
      LauraGTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      No, I'm really commenting on this fantasy that it's easy for a "good guy" to stop a "bad guy."  The NRA portrays it as simple, but we've seen over and over again that really well trained good guys with guns often don't succeed in stopping the bad guys with guns. We've also seen that identifying the "good" versus "bad" guy (a la Martin v. Zimmerman) is not so simple.

      Right now, we're stuck in a political quaqmire, where extremist viewpoints and propoganda are determining policy and practice.

      I shudder to think what would have happened if all of Boston started open firing on anyone they thought looked "suspicious."

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        That's not what people do though. You're painting a false picture based on fear. In real life, citizens are very careful about who they shoot. They hit less innocent people than police, and miss less of their shots than police.

        There was a person within 30 feet of the bombers at one point, in a dark and concealed location, while they were shooting at the police. If he had an AR-style rifle, that would have been like shooting fish in a barrel.

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Of course you all seem too assume that bad guys are never crack shots!

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Bad guys in the light, with pistols. You have a rifle, they don't know where you are, and you are in the dark, with concealment.

            You can put two bullets into each of them in 2 seconds. The only way they would be able to find you would be if you were shooting, and missing, at a constant rate so they could pinpoint your location, assuming they even realized there were shots coming from another direction.

            Sorry, you live in a fantasy world if you think that a person with a rifle is in any real danger from the bombers in that situation.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Hm, suddenly the good guys are well concealed and in the dark whilst the bad guys are in the open and well lit!!

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                That's kind of what happens when the bad guys are on the street, at night, under a street lamp, and you are inside with the lights off.

      2. 82
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It's not easy for anybody to stop somebody who is armed.  That's why I need to be armed too.  That's not an extremist view.

        If I don't have a way to protect myself, what should I do when somebody breaks into my home?  After calling 9-11, what would you propose?  Begging?  Crying?  If I'm alone, I'll call 9-11, get armed, and await help.  If necessary, I'll fire upon those who are trying to hurt/kill me.  If my family is present, I have to protect them.  That's not unreasonable.  Wouldn't most people try to protect their family?  A gun is a reasonable tool when a gun is being used against you.  It's a simple as that.  By the way, if three men are in your home at 2 in the morning, lurking by your daughter's bedroom door, you have reason to be suspicious.

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          When I was burgled I asked the burglars to go away. They went, apologising to me for wakening me.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Good for you. I guess people who are beaten, raped, and murdered by burglars should have just asked them to go away o.O

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You missed my point.

          2. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            When my husband was a young man living off base in Southern California, he was awakened in the middle of the night by noises in his kitchen.  He found a man stealing food.  He invited him to sit down to the table and eat.  He discovered that the man had illegally crossed the border with his family and they had no food or place to stay.  My husband told him to leave and return with his family.  My husband had a meal waiting for them when they arrived.  The family ended up staying for about a week, then moved on.

            Or, I guess he could have shot the burglar.

            1. 82
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I think I understand now.  We should be kind to the person in our house at 2 in the morning.  Is that the advice we should give to our daughters?  "If a stranger is in our house in the middle of the night, offer food to them.  Be nice to them."  I'm sure that will always result in a great outcome.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Did I say any of that?  Every situation is unique.  My husband made a judgment call from a position of strength with compassion.  He had a gun in the house.  In fact, he had already killed many people in battle so he was not a man who would hesitate if his life is in danger.  My point is that a courageous man doesn't think of his gun as the default solution, but a fearful man does.

                1. LauraGT profile image86
                  LauraGTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  ++

                2. 82
                  Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, but a gun is the solution sometimes.  That's my point.

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                    PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't have a problem with you having guns.  I just think if you want to keep guns, you should be willing to submit to stringent regulations, just like if you want to drive a car.

        2. LauraGT profile image86
          LauraGTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          So, the reality is that guns sometimes make people safer - be in walking down the street or deterring someone in your home.  There are lots of examples of this.  And, lots and lots of data make it clear that the opposite is also true - that gun ownership is also related to high rates of homicide  and suicide. In fact, suicide by gun is twice as high in states with high gun ownership than in states with low gun ownership, suggesting that merely having access to guns is a risk factor.  This makes sense, since suicide is often impulsive, and guns make it a definite kill, which is not the case in any other method of suicide.  But, I digress.

          I'm not saying that no one should have a gun. But, why not try to figure out ways to get hands out of the bad guys so there wouldn't be the as much of a "need" to use guns to fend them off? Nothing foolproof, but let's at least look at what could move us in that direction - better background checks (and other measures that help keep guns out of the wrong hands - we could debate this until the cows come home), more accessible and higher quality mental health care (and other behavioral health) services,changes in media coverage and portrayal of violence, etc.   Fear tactics and politics are distorting reality.  It's time to move on, have an open dialog based on reality, and make some changes that will make children (and all people) safer.

          So, before you jump on the "data lies" and "propoganda of the government" and "send me the link" (I'm not your research assistant - you can find it online), just consider that there are many shades of grey here.  We don't have to bicker about this - we all know the reality is somewhere in the middle.

          1. 82
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            It is very likely that tens of millions of guns are not on the books.  Good luck regulating guns out of the hands of criminals.  By regulating all gun sales, all you will be doing is regulating the sale of guns to people who are willing to go through a background check in the first place.

            1. LauraGT profile image86
              LauraGTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I agree - and I would like to see more of those guns sales be on the books.  There is no one solution to this problem, and things won't change overnight, but putting up road blocks to any possible steps that might nudge things in the right direction is not productive.  Guns (some guns) are *part* of the problem - so, a discussion around guns has to be *part* of the conversation around the solution (along with many other factors that influence violence in our society as well).

              1. 82
                Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                The roadblocks won't be for criminals.

      3. HowardBThiname profile image90
        HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Sadly, it wasn't the 6,000 trained officers that found the guy. Their dragnet failed.

        It was an elderly boat owner.

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          So what? In Hindsight fine but that does not change the necessity or usefulness of the dragnet in such situations.

      4. cheaptrick profile image64
        cheaptrickposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        "It's better to have a gun and not need one
        than to need a gun and not have one"
        Question; How many people can a nut job shoot when all those people have guns?
        Answer; Not even close to 27 or 32 or 12 or...get the point?

        1. psycheskinner profile image81
          psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          And how many more accidental shootings, domestic violence shootings, or crimes using stolen guns will there be?  Quite possibly just as many or more.

          1. cheaptrick profile image64
            cheaptrickposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Mass shootings happen in gun free zones. There a bit less frequent at gun ranges though...or police stations. More gun free zones just expands the possibility's.
            It's been said before; Gun laws take guns from law abiding citizens not criminals. I think we can agree on that. Also, the police come after the crime has been committed so self defense is prudent to say the least.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image85
              PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              "Gun laws take guns from law abiding citizens not criminals. I think we can agree on that."

              I don't agree on that.  Why would regulating guns mean you would not be allowed to have a gun if you are law abiding?

              1. cheaptrick profile image64
                cheaptrickposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I'm not talking about regulations like extensive background checks, psych evaluations, and felony denials.I'm talking about making semi autos,certain clips, and configurations being made illegal. There's a grey area of classifying weapons that can effect all weapons because all firearms share some common features. Take assault weapons away from the good guys[law abiding citizens]and the bad guys have the advantage by default....and reducing the number of guns through prohibition...well, look at the war on drugs and how successful that is.28 billion a year to the DEA and there are more and higher quality drugs than ever.

                1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                  PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  They grey area will need to be addressed.  As far as I know, there is no credible movement among politicians to ban all guns.  The majority of Americans support regulating guns, not banning.

                  1. 82
                    Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Washington, D.C. now bans the possession of handguns.

                    Chicago bans the possession of handguns. 

                    In 1982, San Francisco banned handguns, but it was overturned in court.

                    I could keep going.  The fact remains that there IS a movement to ban guns, and I'm not even talking about "assault weapons."  It starts locally and in small increments.  Then, it becomes bigger and spreads.

  4. Anti-Valentine profile image94
    Anti-Valentineposted 3 years ago

    ... a hug. Love and peace, brother. Make love, not war.

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The only terrorists that will hug you are the ones with bombs under their shirt.

  5. wrenfrost56 profile image83
    wrenfrost56posted 3 years ago

    To make sure he hasn't got any bullets in it.

    1. Anti-Valentine profile image94
      Anti-Valentineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Bingo!

      1. wrenfrost56 profile image83
        wrenfrost56posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Thank-you. I do have moments of genius (sometimes).  smile

  6. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 3 years ago

    Here we go again , throwing facts ,figures , statistics and Ideals around  like a food fight in the dining hall !  Right , wrong , indifferent !   I'll say this , if you know how  to lock and load AND shoot it gives you an unbelievable sense of security in and around your home !  Stop the hysteria , calm down and stop worrying , Someone with a gun  is in the neighborhood ! And they are as apt to stand up for you as if  you were there own family , in fact they do that every day in the cruisers  and  in  the back of hum-vees !

    1. LauraGT profile image86
      LauraGTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Ok, sure, let's throw away facts, reality, and ideals and live in a dystopian society.  Sounds like fun!

  7. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    The answer is to give everyone a large angry pet dragon.  Nobody would shoot a person with a large, angry pet dragon.

    1. 61
      Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Game of thrones fan?

      1. psycheskinner profile image81
        psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Neither read nor watched it.  Just a dragon fan.  Those genetic science boffins need to get right on this.

    2. 82
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      This will only work if it is not an assault dragon.  If it has one too many teeth, it must be banned.  Also, please make sure anybody wishing to adopt the dragon undergoes a background check.

  8. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 3 years ago

    Joke all we want, but    the gun debate really is  a story of dragons ,  A fantasy story !  The media and the hysteria of a non-gun -owning  public  look for instant closure to the current  and tragic  issues of the day so that you don't have to feel  a collective shame  and guilt of the condition of a non-existant mental healthcare system,  --for a tired  and worn out revolving doored justice system  , and for representitive government that splurges tax revenues  that should be used to fix an entirely broken penal system ,  Its always the gun  though !  And why , because in reality  , your general  apathy to think beyond the noise of the media ,  to used one sided  "statistics " , polls and personal agendas , rises beyond the ability to THINK of real solutions !   Your apathy has  allowed the civil rights of career  lawbreakers to be foremost front and center in our court systems , has allowed our justice system to morph into  an industry of defense attorneys getting paid by tax dollars to spend years defending some of the worst social deviants in the world !  As soft as this  America culture [ YOU]  is on crime , what is another slew of laws against a lawful group of gun owners going to accomplish anyway ? Yes .....but lets remember we must  slay the firebreathing dragon !

    1. PrettyPanther profile image85
      PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      LOL, the hysteria is on the side of those who quiver at the thought of having their guns registered and tracked.

      1. 82
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        "tracked" 

        That's a word that just doesn't go with freedom.  Sounds Orwellian.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image85
          PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          So scared of your guns being tracked when you yourself can easily be tracked?  Doesn't compute.

          1. 82
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Nope.  I know I can be tracked, but what kind of a government does that?  I'm scared of a government that feels that it needs to do that.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image85
              PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              So, you're opposed to social security numbers?  State identification?  VIN numbers on cars?  Tax returns?

              1. 82
                Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Nobody is talking about confiscating your car.  I'm opposed to tracking being used against people.  I feel that tracking guns is the first step in confiscation.  Before you say that would never happen, you might want to look into how many politicians are on the record about wanting to confiscate or ban all guns.  Start with Dianne Feinstein.

                1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                  PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  All of those things are used to help find people, should the government decide to look.

                  Sure, some politicians want to ban guns.  They're in the minority and there is no danger that will happen any time soon.

                  1. 82
                    Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    "soon"

        2. PrettyPanther profile image85
          PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Or survivalist.

          1. 82
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I'm far from that.  You don't know me.  Don't assume.  I just don't want a freedom eroded.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image85
              PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I'm the one who used the word "tracking," not you.  I wasn't assuming anything about you in that regard.

  9. oseiwilliam profile image60
    oseiwilliamposted 3 years ago

    you ask your self why

  10. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 3 years ago

    Just for the record ,for those who know not of which they speak !  Whenever I have purchased a gun in a gun shop . I fill out a universal backgrouund check , two pages worth of questions  ,  The store owner immediately calls the feds and does an instant background check on my legal status , S.S. number is given ,  criminal records [if any ] are accessed , and then we wait for  the " Proceed " or not !  I have never purchased a gun illegally ,  once in a while  there will be a "delay "if anything is wrong , including computor glitches , Then after the said ," proceed ", I have to show my drivers licence to varify my  in state residence . ...this is all normal for a gun purchase ,  The only online transactions I have had  also had to go through a official dealer withing my state of residence and the state of origin !   I grow old when I hear about the ignorance of non-gun owners , saying" there are no regulations ! No registrations , no  controls at all "! My advice to the senseless drivel of anti-gun people is to learn of what you speak , BEFORE making statements about that which  you niether know about or experience first hand !  Ask law abiding gun owners what they experience , Just to protect ourselves from doing something illegal  !

    1. PrettyPanther profile image85
      PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I have not seen anyone say there are no gun regulations.  You just made that up.

      If I want to buy a gun without a background check, all I have to do is go to a local gun show or buy one from my neighbor.  So easy.

      1. 82
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Have you been to a gun show?  You are wrong about this.  Only some guns at gun shows do not require a background check.  If you purchase a gun from a dealer at a show, you still have to have a background check.

        1. HowardBThiname profile image90
          HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Correct. All gun dealers that exhibit at the shows - run checks.

          There are a few individual collectors here and there- but most are dealers, so this issue is a non-starter.

        2. PrettyPanther profile image85
          PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, I've been to gun shows.  Yes, background checks are required at gun shows when you purchase from a dealer.  The definition of individual vendor is quite loose, though.  Haven't you heard of the "gun show loophole"?

          http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safet … s-map.html

          1. 82
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah, I have heard of it.  I do not believe that additional background checks will help, so for me, this point is pointless unless you can get criminals to abide by the same rules we must adhere to.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image85
              PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You don't think requiring a background check for every single gun purchase will help?  Okay.

              Of course, criminals won't abide by the same rules that we do; that's the definition of criminal.  Does that mean we don't enact laws to deter them?  I'm pretty sure if there was no law against stealing, more people would do it.

              1. HowardBThiname profile image90
                HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                In theory, that all sounds good PP, but there are no stats to back up the idea that adding more regulations will deter criminals. That's why the death penalty is falling away. It's not a deterrent after all.

                Logistically, there is no way to enforce the provision you suggest. The vast majority of gun crimes feature handguns that are stolen, traded for drugs or sex and these guns change hands constantly.

                Do you honestly think a drug dealer is going to run a background check on the gun he sells to a pimp? Seriously?

                But, that's where the majority of the gun crime takes place - in gang- and drug-ridden urban areas.

                If your provision will NOT affect gun crime stats - why do it? Why spend millions of taxpayer dollars to implement a problem that won't have an impact on crime?

                1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                  PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Background checks alone will not be enough.  I agree with that much.  There are ways to do it, though.  If you oppose it because you cannot think of how it could efficiently be done, then you would be in favor of it if an efficient way could be devised?

                  1. HowardBThiname profile image90
                    HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I oppose it for two reasons. First, given the "honesty" of the criminal element - it can never be efficient. We're never going to get them to tell anyone about gun purchases/sales, much less actively seek background checks.

                    Second, for law-abiding citizens, the only ones who would follow the rule - mandatory background checks is very close to an active gun-ownership list. That might not sound too bad either, until you remember what just happened in one state, where a newspaper published the list of all registered gun owners.

                    There's no reason to put honest citizens at risk. Especially, when the added risk does not solve the problem for which it was implemented.

              2. 82
                Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                It means we enact laws that actually will deter them.  Why should we waste time and resources enacting a law that will accomplish little to nothing, so we can feel like we did something?  We need to start looking at what is causing the violence.  Guns don't cause violence; they are merely a tool that can be used for good or bad.

    2. LauraGT profile image86
      LauraGTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Of course there are regulations. The process you had to go through doesn't sound particularly cumbersome.  I think people are arguing that that kind of check should be required no matter where someone is buying a gun, not just at licensed firearm dealers.  Currently, many guns are sold at gun shows, through private transactions, etc, and my understanding is that checks are not required in those situations, contributing to guns being sold to less well-standing citizens than yourself.

      1. HowardBThiname profile image90
        HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The problem that bumped this issue out was that it would be impossible to implement the checks for private, neighbor-to-neighbor, dad-to-son-type transactions. If they tried to implement that - it would severely hamper law-abiding citizens, but, of course, criminals would keep trading guns for drugs for sex....whatever.

        What's happening now - under the radar - is that the DHS is making HUGE ammo purchases. That pulls ammo off the shelves. Right now, there are a limited number of ammo manufacturers, so it will remove some ammo from the public scene. Once again, that's shortsighted because anyone intent on getting large amounts of ammo - can do so. It's just takes a bit longer. Recent rampage shooters have all planned and schemed over months or years, so they won't be impacted.

        This is all fee-good fluff. If the govt. IS successful in reducing the overall number of firearms - all the wanna-be killer have to do is purchase a pressure-cooker and some fireworks.

        Laboring over dunghills, folks.

  11. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 3 years ago

    Wow , i think you just hit that one on the head !.......All of this, this entite issue ,  is but smoke and mirrors anyway!  Want to stop crime with guns ........stop crime !

  12. 0
    Beth37posted 3 years ago

    Jack Bauer.

  13. 61
    Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago

    There is also no requirement to own a car or drive.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image85
      PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Not sure what you're getting at.  There is no requirement to own a gun, either.

      1. 61
        Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        That's right there isn't, not sure where you were going with car registration and drivers license.

  14. 82
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    In Arizona, we have a severe problem with illegal aliens.  Many of us want to make sure that all people who are here to work legally carry a permit.  It is believed that there are as many illegal aliens in Arizona as there are soldiers in the U.S. military!  We're not aloud to require evidence of legal entry to our country according to liberals and courts.  You want American citizens to go through background checks and registration for guns, but we can't do that for illegal aliens.  That's rich.  Do you have any idea how much crime is being committed by illegal aliens?  Why don't we start there? Let's have security and background checks for people entering our country.  That would save  a lot more lives than more background checks for gun owners.

    1. 61
      Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Excellent point.

  15. 61
    Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago

    Maybe I should have used my other name Polly Graf.

 
working