Own a Assault Weapon? soon the Sheriff will be at your home

[brickcitybrother]

I'm not reading ALL of the responses. Both sides make too simplistic arguments. Its either we will live in a utopia when all guns are banned (just like we do now with drugs being banned) or its everyone should have a gun (just like Adam Lanza and his mom). My own opinion lies in the middle of this with one caveat...

35,909 individuals died in motor vehicle accidents in 2010^ (last year for good stats so far) at that same time individuals died at the barrel of a firearm 15,611* (this includes those killed by law enforcement and in self-defense). The real number is closer to 9,960** The overwhelming majority were killed by handguns - 6009, with only 358 killed by rifles of any kind.* Six times any individuals were stabbed to death and more people were killed by bare hands than any kind of rifle.* But we have no problem with all of the rules regarding getting a driver's license. Conversely, more people were killed by knives and hands (and the gov't doesn't regulate those 'killing implements').

The real truth is that the debate is ALL WRONG. The media and the give't wants you to focus on the implements - the guns. The never ever want you to think about WHY people are being shot.

Yes - there needs to be serious rules regarding getting and owning guns!
No - banning guns is not an answer (unless you like the idea of only law breakers having access

We should looking at a bigger picture as to why greater deaths Medical Mistakes (100k to 180k deaths per year in the US***, Auto Accidents (almost 40k **), Cancer, Obseity, etc. are not a bigger concern. How many of you think you're at risk for being killed by a gun? How many of you have had a close close with a shooter? How many of you have had a close call while driving? How many of you will be in hospital in the next year? Worried about the cover-up of medical malpractice that occurs every day? How's your health ... did your dad pass away because of being shot ... or a medical condition (that could have been diagnosed earlier and treated successfully).

Keep letting the debate be about something that not a real issue ... so that they can slip the real issues by you.

Nuff Said!


This was written in 9 minutes on a rant - excuse typos.






^ CLICK HERE
* Click HERE
** Click Here
*** Click Here

[broncofan]

The analogies to cars and medical malpractice don't even withstand the mildest scrutiny.

Every year millions of people undergo life-saving treatments and have surgery and the risk of death, while small in each instance, is going to add up on the aggregate. Millions of people drive cars and they need to in order to live a modern lifestyle which means living an unwalkable distance from where they work. Before airbags and seatbelts became a virtual mandate there were thousands of unnecessary deaths a year. In fact, under the Reagan administration as I've said before, the Department of Transportation misunderstood its mandate and did not want to burden car manufacturers in the name of safety.

Further, if you look at the regulatory framework in the medical field, doctors are not immunized from liability the way the gun manufacturers are. Have you heard of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act? It provides broader protection from products liability for gun manufacturers than drug companies have under Comment K of the Second Restatement of Torts. Comment k was included in the restatement of the law based on the understanding that some drugs had great risks but even greater benefits. They were therefore labeled, unavoidably dangerous. Comment K has subsequently been stripped of its protective power for drug manufacturers because it was superfluous. In short, risk-utility analysis (the previous standard) if applied correctly, accounts for this category of so-called unavoidably dangerous products.

What this all means is that big pharma is a heavily regulated industry and companies are susceptible to lawsuits even when they're creating drugs to unclog your arteries or treat cancer. Doctors do not have a good faith defense to malpractice and are held up to professional standards regardless of intent, as they should be. Gun manufacturers, on the other hand, have virtual immunity from suit even for creative actions such as negligent marketing, which would allow them to be sued for directing their advertisement of assault weapons to criminals.

Finally, to hammer home the final point. People need some form of transport just to live in urban areas. People need medical care and prescription drugs. The argument for the necessity of guns is far weaker and almost makes this entire exercise pointless because it's so intuitive.

The PLCAA-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act
Just a wiki, but why don't you see why Congress saw fit to prevent accountability in the marketplace. Immunity from suit.

Comment K of the Restatement-http://uknowledge.uky.edu/law_facpub/13/

Not a great article on comment k imo, or how it has been interpreted subsequently, but it does demonstrate that drug manufacturers are far more accountable than gun manufacturers in products liability law.

[volkov2006]

They were not created for that purpose.

otherwise give me a credible link.

Cigarettes may not have been created for the purpose but they use tobacco that was used by doctors, tobacco can cause illness and death just like cigarettes. Also how do guns protect and defend BY KILLING!

Also almost all ammunition is used to kill, yes you can just wound, Unless everyone uses rubber bullets the lethal variety is more available. Also if you know anything of biology, the area of the human body to just wound is actually quite small. The torso has most of the vital organs, the head has the brain, the legs have the femoral artery, you hit that and the person loses conciseness in a few seconds and dead in 1 minute.

And any round no matter how big, small, or what ever the gun how ever big or small can kill any person from a 1 year old to a 114 year old.

Also if you want it for protecting for your family to prevent them being killed, why should you be able to kill another person from another family. And if you are not ready to kill why would you get a gun there are less lethal devices that are down played because "Only real men have guns, and if you want to protect your family you must kill, It is the 'Murican dream"

[volkov2006]

I'm not reading ALL of the responses. Both sides make too simplistic arguments. Its either we will live in a utopia when all guns are banned (just like we do now with drugs being banned) or its everyone should have a gun (just like Adam Lanza and his mom). My own opinion lies in the middle of this with one caveat...

35,909 individuals died in motor vehicle accidents in 2010^ (last year for good stats so far) at that same time individuals died at the barrel of a firearm 15,611* (this includes those killed by law enforcement and in self-defense). The real number is closer to 9,960** The overwhelming majority were killed by handguns - 6009, with only 358 killed by rifles of any kind.* Six times any individuals were stabbed to death and more people were killed by bare hands than any kind of rifle.* But we have no problem with all of the rules regarding getting a driver's license. Conversely, more people were killed by knives and hands (and the gov't doesn't regulate those 'killing implements').

The real truth is that the debate is ALL WRONG. The media and the give't wants you to focus on the implements - the guns. The never ever want you to think about WHY people are being shot.

Yes - there needs to be serious rules regarding getting and owning guns!
No - banning guns is not an answer (unless you like the idea of only law breakers having access

We should looking at a bigger picture as to why greater deaths Medical Mistakes (100k to 180k deaths per year in the US***, Auto Accidents (almost 40k **), Cancer, Obseity, etc. are not a bigger concern. How many of you think you're at risk for being killed by a gun? How many of you have had a close close with a shooter? How many of you have had a close call while driving? How many of you will be in hospital in the next year? Worried about the cover-up of medical malpractice that occurs every day? How's your health ... did your dad pass away because of being shot ... or a medical condition (that could have been diagnosed earlier and treated successfully).

Keep letting the debate be about something that not a real issue ... so that they can slip the real issues by you.

Nuff Said!


This was written in 9 minutes on a rant - excuse typos.






^ CLICK HERE
* Click HERE
** Click Here
*** Click Here

One thing the car accidents are just that ACCIDENTS! They were not intended. Medical mistakes are a thing that happens, most of the time it is terminally ill patients as a last ditch effort to save their live and doctors always tell the patient and the family there is always a chance that you can die. Obesity is mostly the persons choice and the government can not tell people when and what they can't eat to force them to make them skinny, others it is in their genetic code and then no matter what they will be obese. Cancer would be cured if we stopped sending all of the new science field students to work on the new iPhone, just so we can have a jack on the bottom, or new tablets when laptops work just fine, we would probably have cancer solved by now.

Although with guns, some are accidents (probably about 5-10%). The rest are split between police and murders (90-95%). And in most cases the police need to kill because the person has a gun him/herself. The other part is conscious decisions to kill.

Car accidents are not planed in 99% of the time, medical mistakes are a risk we all take with any medical care to keep us alive and is not planned at all, unless the doctor is a psychopath. Gun deaths on the other hand if any one take a gun to use to kill it is a decision that they made, is not an accident or a risk to keep us alive because of an illness or an accident outside of our control.

[fivekatz]

Brickcitybrother, you bring up some good points as far as other things in the world that should be of concern. But that does not change the on-going debate in US about sensible regulation, registration and licensing of firearms.

Auto safety is an interesting topic to bring up. For the longest time the lobbies for auto manufactures and the auto makers themselves always claim that the carnage on the highways was human error and not the product. But after years of infighting safety standards were applied such as seat belts, air bags, better bumpers, better side body construction, superior brakes, break away steering columns were added and the fatalities per capita were radically reduced. Not eliminated reduced.

Then there is the issue of cancer and how many more people a year it kills than guns do and if one looks at what we spend on cancer research as a government versus what we spend on our military that too is shameful.

While idealistically I would love to see us become a society without guns, that is not going to happen, any more than we were going to ban cars.

So what I suggest is we treat the guns just like cars. You need to register it, you need a license to operate it and your license to operate will be controlled by your first passing a simple test just like you would to operate a car and it would be limited to what you as a citizen need to operate.

Now there aren't good reasons for the average citizen to own an assault weapon, so just like the average driver does not have a license to operate a commercial 18 wheeler, the average citizen would not have the a license to operate a assault weapon. Without a license, one should not be allowed to register their assault weapon and since registration could take place at the time of sale, assault weapons would only be sold to those who can show occupational need for assault weapons.

That little bit was just spit balling. But your car analogy was a good chance to show how industry argues a point to distract (people kill people not guns - cars don't kill - drivers error does).

[broncofan]

Total death figures can be helpful but the other components to consider are this. What effort is required in each case to reduce the number of deaths? Cancer kills millions of people but it has been exceedingly difficult to come up with effective treatments for all of its different manifestations. The research effort continues and money spent on cancer research is still money well spent. Cars? From decade to decade they do get safer. No more Corvair impaling people with the steering column. No more three wheel motorcycles that flip over when turned. SUVs are less likely to flip because manufacturers have been sued and responded by building safer vehicles.

You also cannot look at total number of people killed by an implement without considering its utility. This is common sense. Comparing the number of deaths from transport to the number of deaths from a firearm is braindead unless you can greatly reduce the risk in our transportation system without making automobiles less useful. I don't think any reasonable person could believe that the harm to commerce caused by disallowing civilians to own assault weapons would somehow be similar to the threat of getting rid of highways and cars.

Gun manufacturers have gotten a form of legal immunity that serves no good legal or public policy purpose. Drugs are safer because drug manufacturers are liable for millions every year. Why should guns be shielded and not drugs? You want to encourage the development of prescription treatments for hard to cure diseases and discourage the development of equipment that facilitates mass murder.

Anyhow, it is tremendously disturbing that this guy was able to get his hands on assault weaponry.

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news...munity-leaders

[my my my!]

I've already identified myself as gun owner. However I do believe there are many solutions that would bring gun deaths down considerably, of course it will upset some and make others happy, but it would be at the very least an improvement

First, I'm a realist, and believe that Humans are inherently prone to being violent which is the reason that I don't believe we are going to stop the gang/underworld type of shootings. Criminals will get weapons somehow, theoretically from corrupt foreign country black markets (assuming at that point in the future , ALL guns are banned and confiscated from every single home in the US and gun dealers are shut down)

I don't like using google for these type of subjects, but am I correct in saying that most of the mass campus shootings of the past 5 years have been by teens to mid 20's type of people?

Now some ideas I came up with just from the top of my head (don't believe me because you've seen them before? well perhaps you have, and I'm not denying that they might be similar to other's Ideas, but I promise you I didn't google these )

some Ideas I want to share with you, Please refrain from the "how moronic" comments and contribute a reason as to why it would not work outright , or what could be changed to these ideas)
-Require all gun owners to register their weapons (serial number and weapon type) and have the data added to central database. The local cops here can punch in your license plate and figure out if your car is insured, and what your name is before even asking you , Unless you're in a stolen car or someone else's car. So doing a central database system for guns that is accessible to all law enforcement, gun dealers and other government entities is very do-able. Public availability to this database? Perhaps not, because criminals would know exactly where to get weapons from registered citizens.

-Raise the minimum age for buying weapons to 30 . I'll admit that with teen angst and college years drama , some people of those ages just shouldn't have a weapon available (not saying that older people don't go nuts and shoot people too). I have the belief that People become wiser and more serene as they get older, generally.

- Initiate a psychological/psychiatric evaluation program that is mandatory for anyone turning 18 or less general , anyone wanting to buy a weapon for that matter. They did one of these at my old work place as part of a workplace personality study, and you'd be surprised how many people realistically were found to need counseling. Some employee's answers were evaluated, and interpreted to show signs of depression, dissatisfaction and other issues. When the same employee was asked, they revealed that said conditions were true. Might give insight into perhaps prohibiting sales of firearms to some people with these types of issues.

- Install a sensor/chip type of device on ALL weapons, even retro fitting old weapons in people's possession. Create "boundaries" within cities or areas, that firearms are absolutely forbidden and will raise an alarm, such as schools, banks and other institutions. *I admit guns should only be allowed in gun environments like shooting ranges. Current gps and navigation technology would allow this, it would just be a matter of passing the legislation to require this and then implementing the system. Example school would be able to detect a registered weapon within 2000 yards of the school and sound a buzzer or alarm, like the old "fire drills"

- Require a high technology safe for all weapons , except for ONE weapon designated for home defense (this one is very hard to enforce admittedly unless the door to door principle is implemented) One solution could be , to force us gun owners, to get a permit to shoot,EVERY TIME we want to shoot our weapons. They would be like the ones you are issued when you want to make an addition to your house. Us shooters would have to plan way in advance when we want to schedule a shooting session. Possible killers might get frustrated by this process and calm down and NOT do what they were going to do.

- Anyone under 30 can not discharge any weapon, without the registered serial number owner present. What does this mean? Junior can not tell dad, "dad I'm going to go fire the 44" anymore, without dad having to accompany him.

- Make magazines with serial numbers that also have to be registered, and Limit one magazine for the home defense weapon. When someone tries to buy more magazines, the seller (gun shop) runs the buyer's information through the centralized system, and will know if the person already has a magazine in their possession. Claims of "I need another one because my other one is damaged" would require bringing the other magazine in to the seller's facility, to be registered for destruction, and removal of serial number from buyer's profile. Inserting bullets into the magazine would have to be done on the spot, if anyone actually managed to unload the "home defense pistol" in public.

- for those of us that value the home defense sense of security, Neighborhood watch type of programs should be looked at again. That way if any strange people are in a neighborhood, actions can be taken to PREVENT a crime, including a shooting.

-require gun safety and gun violence teaching at schools. even if it's a 2 hour course per student per year or something like that. Kids would be shown how a gun works, and would be shown statistics of how many people die by guns every year. Demonize guns, so maybe the newer generations don't like guns as much, and us older gun guys eventually die out. There will be less guns in FUTURE generations.

Social factors related to shootings and other violence and deaths that might be worth looking into:
- Punish bullying, internet/real life harrasment, child abuse with stiffer fines and penalties. The reason I bring this up, is because some of the mass shooters, or random shootings are done by people that were being bullied at school/work or in another social scenario. Also perhaps look MORE into the resources available to bullied/harassed/abused children and teens (or of any age). Crisis centers, teaching kids in school that bullying has negative effects and perhaps also show the statistics i.e.how many kids committed suicide or homicide because they were being bullied/harassed/abused.

- Look into Workplace firings/layoffs more deeply. Alot of shooters are disgruntled ex-employees. Perhaps force a temporary confiscation of Laid off people's weapons. They have to prove stable employment to regain their weapons as well as pass the psychological requirement exam. Employers would be required to report terminations to corresponding authority, to escort laid off employees to their homes. Mass layoffs would get tricky though.

-Look way more seriously into unemployed/laid off counseling and psychiatric help programs. It is very STRESSFUL to get laid off, and some people just can't hack it. I was laid off 4 years ago, and our employer just to sign our termination, and we were without a job a minute later. No offer of counseling programs or resources.

- Look into Implementing an even stricter rating (example would be 25+ only 25 year olds and above can play that game or watch that movie) for video games, movies and other media that depict guns shooting a human. Do we really need kids playing a game where your objective is to shoot as many people as you can? Does a 14 year old need to see the new Rambo movie? Or be force fed call of duty every year for 10 years in a row? This is a free speech issue, and Is kind of harsh.

A Possible Scenario for the safe would be:
Let's say , I feel like shooting some targets at a gun range. I schedule an appointment with my local gun range (walk ins would no longer be allowed), gun range gives me code to open my safe. That way kids/teenagers/early 20's dudes don't have access to the code.

Possible Results:
Eventually. lesser gun deaths.

However, patient psycopaths might figure out ways to circumvent all these measures or use other means to kill. That is the nature of humanity.

From the media limits, and the showing informative videos in school, maybe the gun culture will fizzle out and the new generations might not be that interested in them anymore.

I sincerely believe We can do all of these, the technology is there i.e. GPS, home arrest mechanisms are proof that they can monitor when someone leaves a house.

None of this is proposed or suggested to happen over night. It would take perhaps years of legislation, and development of consistent/working technology and commitment from both the citizenry (gunowners and non owners alike) and government (no half-assed sh*t) to make all this work to bring gun deaths down by a huge percentage.

[volkov2006]

First, I'm a realist, and believe that Humans are inherently prone to being violent which is the reason that I don't believe we are going to stop the gang/underworld type of shootings. Criminals will get weapons somehow, theoretically from corrupt foreign country black markets (assuming at that point in the future , ALL guns are banned and confiscated from every single home in the US and gun dealers are shut down)

I don't like using google for these type of subjects, but am I correct in saying that most of the mass campus shootings of the past 5 years have been by teens to mid 20's type of people?

-Require all gun owners to register their weapons (serial number and weapon type) and have the data added to central database. The local cops here can punch in your license plate and figure out if your car is insured, and what your name is before even asking you , Unless you're in a stolen car or someone else's car. So doing a central database system for guns that is accessible to all law enforcement, gun dealers and other government entities is very do-able. Public availability to this database? Perhaps not, because criminals would know exactly where to get weapons from registered citizens.

-Raise the minimum age for buying weapons to 30 . I'll admit that with teen angst and college years drama , some people of those ages just shouldn't have a weapon available (not saying that older people don't go nuts and shoot people too). I have the belief that People become wiser and more serene as they get older, generally.

- Initiate a psychological/psychiatric evaluation program that is mandatory for anyone turning 18 or less general , anyone wanting to buy a weapon for that matter. They did one of these at my old work place as part of a workplace personality study, and you'd be surprised how many people realistically were found to need counseling. Some employee's answers were evaluated, and interpreted to show signs of depression, dissatisfaction and other issues. When the same employee was asked, they revealed that said conditions were true. Might give insight into perhaps prohibiting sales of firearms to some people with these types of issues.

- Install a sensor/chip type of device on ALL weapons, even retro fitting old weapons in people's possession. Create "boundaries" within cities or areas, that firearms are absolutely forbidden and will raise an alarm, such as schools, banks and other institutions. *I admit guns should only be allowed in gun environments like shooting ranges. Current gps and navigation technology would allow this, it would just be a matter of passing the legislation to require this and then implementing the system. Example school would be able to detect a registered weapon within 2000 yards of the school and sound a buzzer or alarm, like the old "fire drills"

- Require a high technology safe for all weapons , except for ONE weapon designated for home defense (this one is very hard to enforce admittedly unless the door to door principle is implemented) One solution could be , to force us gun owners, to get a permit to shoot,EVERY TIME we want to shoot our weapons. They would be like the ones you are issued when you want to make an addition to your house. Us shooters would have to plan way in advance when we want to schedule a shooting session. Possible killers might get frustrated by this process and calm down and NOT do what they were going to do.

- Anyone under 30 can not discharge any weapon, without the registered serial number owner present. What does this mean? Junior can not tell dad, "dad I'm going to go fire the 44" anymore, without dad having to accompany him.

- Make magazines with serial numbers that also have to be registered, and Limit one magazine for the home defense weapon. When someone tries to buy more magazines, the seller (gun shop) runs the buyer's information through the centralized system, and will know if the person already has a magazine in their possession. Claims of "I need another one because my other one is damaged" would require bringing the other magazine in to the seller's facility, to be registered for destruction, and removal of serial number from buyer's profile. Inserting bullets into the magazine would have to be done on the spot, if anyone actually managed to unload the "home defense pistol" in public.

- for those of us that value the home defense sense of security, Neighborhood watch type of programs should be looked at again. That way if any strange people are in a neighborhood, actions can be taken to PREVENT a crime, including a shooting.

-require gun safety and gun violence teaching at schools. even if it's a 2 hour course per student per year or something like that. Kids would be shown how a gun works, and would be shown statistics of how many people die by guns every year. Demonize guns, so maybe the newer generations don't like guns as much, and us older gun guys eventually die out. There will be less guns in FUTURE generations.

Social factors related to shootings and other violence and deaths that might be worth looking into:
- Punish bullying, internet/real life harrasment, child abuse with stiffer fines and penalties. The reason I bring this up, is because some of the mass shooters, or random shootings are done by people that were being bullied at school/work or in another social scenario. Also perhaps look MORE into the resources available to bullied/harassed/abused children and teens (or of any age). Crisis centers, teaching kids in school that bullying has negative effects and perhaps also show the statistics i.e.how many kids committed suicide or homicide because they were being bullied/harassed/abused.

- Look into Workplace firings/layoffs more deeply. Alot of shooters are disgruntled ex-employees. Perhaps force a temporary confiscation of Laid off people's weapons. They have to prove stable employment to regain their weapons as well as pass the psychological requirement exam. Employers would be required to report terminations to corresponding authority, to escort laid off employees to their homes. Mass layoffs would get tricky though.

-Look way more seriously into unemployed/laid off counseling and psychiatric help programs. It is very STRESSFUL to get laid off, and some people just can't hack it. I was laid off 4 years ago, and our employer just to sign our termination, and we were without a job a minute later. No offer of counseling programs or resources.

- Look into Implementing an even stricter rating (example would be 25+ only 25 year olds and above can play that game or watch that movie) for video games, movies and other media that depict guns shooting a human. Do we really need kids playing a game where your objective is to shoot as many people as you can? Does a 14 year old need to see the new Rambo movie? Or be force fed call of duty every year for 10 years in a row? This is a free speech issue, and Is kind of harsh.

I first want to start off with saying that I am not going to say "you are a fucking moron" it may be my first amendment right to do so but I choose to not say things like that for my own morals.

Also I really like this post you actually brought out some solutions that may or may not work. This is the kind of thing we need not people just saying "we need to have gun laws" and the other side saying "you liberal hippys coming for our guns YOU COMMIES!".

I also what to say that as of today 71 days since Newtown 2218 people have died from a gun that is up 21 since yesterday. For anyone who wants to know where I am getting these numbers:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

I do agree that humans are inherently violent, but throughout the world we have the most gun deaths outside of some sort of war like situations, like civil wars, revolutions, warlords, etc.

Also I do admit that a lot of guns are purchased through the black market for warlords or drug cartels or para military outfits, but most criminal guns here in the US are actually obtained by stealing from responsible gun owners or going to a gun show and dealing with private dealers that don't do background checks, or even photo ID, just money.

I do agree that owners should need to register their guns just like we need to register our vehicles. Although with out finding a way to stop gun thefts, or at least getting the owners to report the theft, and closing the gun-show loophole that will have little effect.

Raising the age to a minimum of 30 would make a lot of difference on the amount of gun owners but like I said in my previous post if we don't stop theft or the loophole that will have little effect. Also raising the minimum age to 30 may hurt families that rely on hunting, although most of the hunters only need a shotgun or a 5 round bolt-action rifle for these type of things.

I agree with the psychiatric background checks for purchasing a weapon. The only problem is again , I feel like a broken record, thefts and loophole. Also another major thing is that their is a law here in the US that all background checks for weapon purchases by the FBI must be destroyed within 2 weeks, why. Also some retailers must be charged if they don't give background check, which we don't do.

That sounds really cool and would probably work although we would need to find a way for it to not be removed with out destroying it. Also we had a thing many years ago that was down played by gun manufacturers, it was a type of DNA scanning or something like that like what was for laptops about 3 years ago. Sadly it did not catch on.

I like the scheduling thing but good luck getting it through any sort of government body with out the NRA screaming that they are coming for our guns, and what makes them better then us, or this is the end of America. Although 87% or NRA members want better gun laws, the NRA does not listen, because sine 2004 they have been lobbing for the gun manufacturers.

I like this it is like a teenager who has a driving permit, they must drive with a person of 21 years of age or older, or a parent, I do like this thing.

I like the serial number for magazines, and limiting them. Although the Aurora shooter from Colorado this past summer had purchased most of his ammo online, unchecked. Also the gun-show loophole.

I do like the neighborhood watch thing although they should not be armed, otherwise we will have another Travon Martin on our hands(what a mess that was).

I am very cautious about teaching at the schools, 1 teaching them how to use them might make kids want to have them more. I think teaching them the statistics and history of gun violence and the non-lethal ways would be better than teaching them to use the guns. Also some self defense training would be a good thing and how to act when forced into a gun situation.

The bulling, layoff, and the unemployment does need a lot of attention. These are put off to the side lines far to often.

The rating system for games and movies like the ESRB needs to be trashed, I personally like the European PEGI system. The ESRB has only Everyone, Everyone +10, Teen, Mature, and Adult Only. PEGI on the other hand is rated by age not age groups, ie 12, 13, 14, not 13-16 for Teen. Although almost every study into games and movies has shown yes that it does increase aggressiveness but it also states that those tendencies wear off within 30 minutes most within 10.

[my my my!]

Volkov, that's why I said this:

None of this is proposed or suggested to happen over night. It would take perhaps years of legislation, and development of consistent/working technology and commitment from both the citizenry (gunowners and non owners alike) and government (no half-assed sh*t) to make all this work to bring gun deaths down by a huge percentage.

Of course People will always try to circumvent things.


commitment from both the citizenry (gunowners and non owners alike) and government (no half-assed sh*t)

if there's none of this , the issue is going to stall like abortion and some others. just 2 sides constantly going at it, and upsetting each other with their proposals and ideas.

I know people on both sides of the Abortion debate, and they will not budge.
The pro lifers I know are damn set in their ways, just like the pro-choicers are.No amount of debate is going to convince them, they've heard it all already and are still set in their way.

Believe it or not, I do know anti gun people that are actually my friends, and they are set in their ways. Short of confiscating anything they consider "dangerous", they wont listen to proposals that might be worth giving a try as opposed to "no , this is my way of thinking and I'm not budging"

[volkov2006]

Volkov, that's why I said this:

None of this is proposed or suggested to happen over night. It would take perhaps years of legislation, and development of consistent/working technology and commitment from both the citizenry (gunowners and non owners alike) and government (no half-assed sh*t) to make all this work to bring gun deaths down by a huge percentage.

Of course People will always try to circumvent things.


commitment from both the citizenry (gunowners and non owners alike) and government (no half-assed sh*t)

if there's none of this , the issue is going to stall like abortion and some others. just 2 sides constantly going at it, and upsetting each other with their proposals and ideas.

I know people on both sides of the Abortion debate, and they will not budge.
The pro lifers I know are damn set in their ways, just like the pro-choicers are.No amount of debate is going to convince them, they've heard it all already and are still set in their way.

Believe it or not, I do know anti gun people that are actually my friends, and they are set in their ways. Short of confiscating anything they consider "dangerous", they wont listen to proposals that might be worth giving a try as opposed to "no , this is my way of thinking and I'm not budging"

I understand I was just trying to expand on some of your topics, not point out why they will fail, just trying to help put things in perspective.

Believe me or not I was very pro gun just 2 years ago, but I changed only because I was getting tired of seeing every 2 weeks another mass shooting. Just last year I had starting my transition (M2F) and had wanted to get a gun for protection because I am not passable at all (I am ugly as hell), but after serious thought I decided against it. So I don't believe I am set in my ways, I believe in compromise but as of right now the gun lobbyists, the NRA, the majority of Republicans, and the hard core gun owners are the ones that are so stuck in their ways that nothing is getting done. Now I know that liberals, democrats and others are just as set in their ways but I think we have given more than the right has.

Also it was the NRA that actually fought for people on the terror watch list whether they were there on accident or for a very specific reason, for them to have guns, any guns they wanted. I personally think that the NRA needs new management and get the crazies out, most NRA members are not crazy they are reasonable people, likeable people, but the NRA management WOW!

I don't think the way to make good sensible changes is by fighting and getting rid of all guns, but I personally thing a civilian should not need access to military grade weapons. If you want to fire these guns I think setting up gun ranges where you rent these guns for a set amount of times while you are there just like paint ball would work pretty good and people who want to fire and handle these weapons get to do so. They would have to workout some finer details to make it work right but I think if we ban these weapons but open these places up would make up for not being able to own them.

Also for the confiscating I am against, but I am not against buy back programs where you turn them in for a gift card or cash for what it is worth. Because if the government passed a thing to ban something would you want to be in possession on it, if they banned ford trucks you would want to sell it to the government. I think if you have bought these items and they become illegal you should be reimbursed for it.

And thank you for being a kind and tacked full in these last few posts, it is refreshing from the screaming matches. Thank you so much, nothing will get done if we all don't stop fighting and talk normally.

Thank you!