The Heroic Gunslinger Fantasy

[kmoney]

A general response to the thread...

Treating guns more like cars does make sense to me. However, what are the numbers here. It seems like registration/licensing would primarily combat accidents, injuries/deaths that result in the improper use of a gun. What are the numbers on that?

A small number doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try something, but I don't think it would anything about the stories of gun violence we've seen in the news recently.

 

[CabinetMaker]

A general response to the thread...

Treating guns more like cars does make sense to me. However, what are the numbers here. It seems like registration/licensing would primarily combat accidents, injuries/deaths that result in the improper use of a gun. What are the numbers on that?

A small number doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try something, but I don't think it would anything about the stories of gun violence we've seen in the news recently.

How many more Sandy Hooks, Coumbine or Navy Yard shootings are we willing to tolerate? It should be obvious by now that our current laws are not working.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Here is a silly quote from that article...

Apparently using a gun to stop a crime without actually killing the bad guy doesn't count. :bang:

Are those statistics even available? I honestly don't know.

 

[PureX]

A general response to the thread...

Treating guns more like cars does make sense to me. However, what are the numbers here. It seems like registration/licensing would primarily combat accidents, injuries/deaths that result in the improper use of a gun. What are the numbers on that?

A small number doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try something, but I don't think it would anything about the stories of gun violence we've seen in the news recently.

I believe it could and should involve more than just training. A single national system of licensing for gun ownership could also include an effective national data base from which to assess social responsibility. And this would go a long way in identifying potential firearms abuses before they occur.

For example, right now I could have a series of drunk driving convictions, proving that I am irresponsible with alcohol to the point of endangering the general public, and yet this information would not preclude me from buying firearms because it will not show up on a background check, or prohibit the sale even if it did. The same is true if I've been accused multiple times of a stalking, or involved in multiple domestic disputes, or if I'm suffering from dementia, or schizophrenia. All situations that should preclude me from owning guns, but currently do not.

I think if we combined real and effective background checks that can detect these kinds of real indicators of past violence and irresponsibility, we could very effectively weed out many of the people who are most likely to abuse firearms and kill themselves or others in the future.

No system can be perfect. But we could do a whole lot better than we are doing, now.

 

[Granite]

How many more Sandy Hooks, Coumbine or Navy Yard shootings are we willing to tolerate? It should be obvious by now that our current laws are not working.

The answer is: All of them.

Columbine was back in '99. Sandy Hook's victims were primarily small children. We've waited this long since Columbine, and did nothing after the Newtown atrocity. In what other country could a head of state, his brother, a civil rights leader, and a rock and roll icon get shot to death in a span of less than twenty years? It literally couldn't happen anywhere else.

 

[kmoney]

How many more Sandy Hooks, Coumbine or Navy Yard shootings are we willing to tolerate? It should be obvious by now that our current laws are not working.

How would your proposed change stop those events?

 

[Granite]

Has anyone seriously considered holding firearms manufacturers liable for such events? Because once litigation's involved they'd change their tune dramatically.

 

[kmoney]

Has anyone seriously considered holding firearms manufacturers liable for such events? Because once litigation's involved they'd change their tune dramatically.

What liability would they have? What could they do to prevent Sandy Hook, etc?

 

[Granite]

What liability would they have? What could they do to prevent Sandy Hook, etc?

Well let's step back and address your question about Sandy Hook first.

Maybe certain purchases, or attempted purchases, could, or should, prompt an automatic review. An appeals process, if you like.

When my father applied for his concealed carry years ago in Michigan he had to explain himself to the chief of police and county prosecutor (as well as a couple of other bureaucrats). That's just for a CCP. Granted, the law in my birth state's changed since then--I doubt the maniac in Auburn Hills could've packed heat otherwise--but I don't necessarily see anything wrong with having to sit down and explain why you want to stockpile certain firearms, or to discuss with local law enforcement your current living situation and home environment.

For crying out loud, kmo: When I adopted my dog, they asked about my house, the environment she was going into, my experience with owning with or living with dogs, and the like. And this is the stuff we just take for granted when you want to buy a carbine? I live ten minutes walk from a gun shop and could have a carbine capable of pretty impressive damage by lunch. It seriously takes more time to adopt from the humane society than it does to pick up a Bushmaster. Something is wrong with that picture.

Nancy Lanza's arrangement (such as it was) with her son should have been brought to someone's attention given the kid's ready access to firearms.

http://csgv.org/blog/2013/adam-lanza-took-didnt-take-sandy-hook-elementary/

Is it too much to think somebody wearing a badge should've asked:

"Ma'am, given the state your son's in...what do you think you're doing?"

 

[CabinetMaker]

How would your proposed change stop those events?

Periodic testing testing of gun owners. Including me as I own guns. The testing would have to include some sort of phsocological component. I don't know how to accomplish this but we do know that most of the shooters in these mass shooting incidents had some sort of "mental disorder."

I don't know if the testing would catch people. The Sand Hook shooter had access to his grandmothers guns. The Columbine shooters got somebody else to buy their guns. The Aurora theater shooter bought his legally. Had there been a test required before he could purchase the guns then he may have gotten the help he needed before completing his plan.

It seems to me that as a society we must by willing to accept mass shootings and the associated death toll as the cost of the second amendment or we must be willing to take steps to attempt to ensure that those who own guns are reasonably competent to do so.

 

[bybee]

What liability would they have? What could they do to prevent Sandy Hook, etc?

What about knife makers? Should the vendors of gasoline be held responsible for arson?
Should we all sit in our rocking chairs and tend to our own knitting? Or shall we require a government licensure for our knitting needles because, after all, they have been used to stab people?
Or
What if the public schools returned to a curriculum which includes the teaching of basic morality and citizenship?
Could that possibly be a good starting point?

 

[CabinetMaker]

What liability would they have? What could they do to prevent Sandy Hook, etc?

Gun makers would have no liability unless they deliberately made a gun that could be modified from semi auto to full auto. Aside from that, they have no more liability than an automaker has when somebody crashes a car into a crowd of people.

 

[Granite]

Gun makers would have no liability unless they deliberately made a gun that could be modified from semi auto to full auto. Aside from that, they have no more liability than an automaker has when somebody crashes a car into a crowd of people.

I'd be willing to take it steps further. You don't see Joe Camel anymore. How about the gun industry ending "kid friendly" ad campaigns for firearms?

If we started treating the firearms industry like we do literally every other business in this country, trust me, things would change dramatically.

 

[MrDeets]

This is my favorite "Heroic Gunslinger" fantasy... :chuckle:

 

[patrick jane]

This is my favorite "Heroic Gunslinger" fantasy... :chuckle:

View attachment 20448

 

[kmoney]

Periodic testing testing of gun owners. Including me as I own guns. The testing would have to include some sort of phsocological component. I don't know how to accomplish this but we do know that most of the shooters in these mass shooting incidents had some sort of "mental disorder."

I don't know if the testing would catch people. The Sand Hook shooter had access to his grandmothers guns. The Columbine shooters got somebody else to buy their guns. The Aurora theater shooter bought his legally. Had there been a test required before he could purchase the guns then he may have gotten the help he needed before completing his plan.

It seems to me that as a society we must by willing to accept mass shootings and the associated death toll as the cost of the second amendment or we must be willing to take steps to attempt to ensure that those who own guns are reasonably competent to do so.

How many of the people who commit these mass killings have been diagnosed with a mental illness? And if that happened after they already committed the murders, how much is the diagnosis swayed because they already killed people?

 

[kmoney]

Well let's step back and address your question about Sandy Hook first.

Maybe certain purchases, or attempted purchases, could, or should, prompt an automatic review. An appeals process, if you like.

When my father applied for his concealed carry years ago in Michigan he had to explain himself to the chief of police and county prosecutor (as well as a couple of other bureaucrats). That's just for a CCP. Granted, the law in my birth state's changed since then--I doubt the maniac in Auburn Hills could've packed heat otherwise--but I don't necessarily see anything wrong with having to sit down and explain why you want to stockpile certain firearms, or to discuss with local law enforcement your current living situation and home environment.

For crying out loud, kmo: When I adopted my dog, they asked about my house, the environment she was going into, my experience with owning with or living with dogs, and the like. And this is the stuff we just take for granted when you want to buy a carbine? I live ten minutes walk from a gun shop and could have a carbine capable of pretty impressive damage by lunch. It seriously takes more time to adopt from the humane society than it does to pick up a Bushmaster. Something is wrong with that picture.

Nancy Lanza's arrangement (such as it was) with her son should have been brought to someone's attention given the kid's ready access to firearms.

http://csgv.org/blog/2013/adam-lanza-took-didnt-take-sandy-hook-elementary/

Is it too much to think somebody wearing a badge should've asked:

"Ma'am, given the state your son's in...what do you think you're doing?"

The difference between the dog and the gun is an interesting one. But some of their precaution isn't based on concern about how you will use/treat the dog, it's about making sure you won't end up dropping the dog back off at the shelter two weeks later.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, but I'm not sure how to enforce it. Would you say Adam's mom shouldn't have been allowed to have any guns? Or just that she should have locked them up better? How do you enforce something like that?

 

[Granite]

The difference between the dog and the gun is an interesting one. But some of their precaution isn't based on concern about how you will use/treat the dog, it's about making sure you won't end up dropping the dog back off at the shelter two weeks later.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, but I'm not sure how to enforce it. Would you say Adam's mom shouldn't have been allowed to have any guns? Or just that she should have locked them up better? How do you enforce something like that?

I appreciate our culture frets about the welfare of dogs. I truly do. I'd submit we should worry as much if not more so about the sort of person interested in buying a Bushmaster, what they plan to do with it, why they want it, and how they'll keep it in safe hands.

In Mrs. Lanza's case, given the at-home situation with her son? Yes, I'd say there should have been a limit. Or some kind of legal intervention or red flag. The woman was horribly irresponsible, to be perfectly blunt. And of course she paid the price for her irresponsibility. Makes me wonder: What was Nancy--an affluent white American woman living in one of the safest places in the world--so afraid of?

Maybe deep down she was really afraid of the creature living down the hall from her. And we can see what good her guns did her then.

 

[CabinetMaker]

I'd be willing to take it steps further. You don't see Joe Camel anymore. How about the gun industry ending "kid friendly" ad campaigns for firearms?

If we started treating the firearms industry like we do literally every other business in this country, trust me, things would change dramatically.

I have never seen a gun commercial lay alone a bid friendly gun commercial.

 

[CabinetMaker]

How many of the people who commit these mass killings have been diagnosed with a mental illness? And if that happened after they already committed the murders, how much is the diagnosis swayed because they already killed people?

I don't think a"sane" person just goes or and starts shooting. These people had something going on in their lives that made them think k killing a bunch of people wad a good idea. To the right person, that would show up.