What will it take to make America want reasonable gun laws?

[mjr]

Yes, because I know not to shoot at stuff near someone's house because bullets go through walls. Also I don't shoot humans.

that exact same thing could be said for a large majority of gun owners.

You did say, "America still can't be responsible with guns."

You're part of "America", right? So you're responsible with a gun, but everyone else who has one isn't? Is that right?

[Greenday]

that exact same thing could be said for a large majority of gun owners.

You did say, "America still can't be responsible with guns."

You're part of "America", right? So you're responsible with a gun, but everyone else who has one isn't? Is that right?

The fact that it's not a rare thing and a regular occurrence means America as a whole has a problem.

[Tanasi]

The fact that it's not a rare thing and a regular occurrence means America as a whole has a problem.

I'm curious: What firearms training have you had???

[mjr]

The fact that it's not a rare thing and a regular occurrence means America as a whole has a problem.

But again, I'm talking about a large majority of gun owners. And a large majority of gun owners aren't the "irresponsible" people you're talking about.

[Greenday]

I'm curious: What firearms training have you had???

Well, when I went to Afghanistan, proper gun safety/use was taught. When I did research in college on gunshot residue, it involved going to the range so we were given safety training for that by our teacher. When I went on a date with my now wife at a range in Pennsylvania, they go over basic safety before you even step outside to the range and had an instructor with us at all times showing us how to properly load each weapon, aiming, safety. The range I now go to offers safety classes to new members so we've gone through that. And then I've read plenty over time over how best to store guns/ammo at home, transport, etc.

But again, I'm talking about a large majority of gun owners. And a large majority of gun owners aren't the "irresponsible" people you're talking about.

I realize the majority are responsible but I also realize too many are irresponsible and the result of that is why I'd be willing to follow in the path of the UK or Australia or Canada.

[s_stabeler]

But again, I'm talking about a large majority of gun owners. And a large majority of gun owners aren't the "irresponsible" people you're talking about.

which is why you design gun laws that (ideally) allow the responsible gun owners to keep them, while taking them away from those that are not. The issue is where you draw the line between preventing irresponsible people from owning guns and allowing responsible people to own guns.
basically, letting anyone buy guns no matter what is fairly obviously a recipe for disaster, particularly if that includes things like gatling guns. However, it's also clearly unfair to ban guns outright. The question is, where do you draw the line? it's currently at a fairly permissive level (they have to prove you are irresponsible, and the amount of checks is fairly low. ( background checks for gun ownership are basically a criminal records check and a medical records check, IIRC- and not always a medical records check) and the argument is that the various loopholes should probably be plugged and restrictions tightened somewhat. The question is, how far should they be tightened?

[mjr]

which is why you design gun laws that (ideally) allow the responsible gun owners to keep them, while taking them away from those that are not. The issue is where you draw the line between preventing irresponsible people from owning guns and allowing responsible people to own guns.

So how do you keep them out of the hands of criminals and felons who, by law, cannot legally own them anyway? Remember in the Texas shooting, the guy fell through the cracks because his transgressions weren't entered into the Database by the Air Force.

basically, letting anyone buy guns no matter what is fairly obviously a recipe for disaster, particularly if that includes things like gatling guns. However, it's also clearly unfair to ban guns outright. The question is, where do you draw the line? it's currently at a fairly permissive level (they have to prove you are irresponsible, and the amount of checks is fairly low. ( background checks for gun ownership are basically a criminal records check and a medical records check, IIRC- and not always a medical records check) and the argument is that the various loopholes should probably be plugged and restrictions tightened somewhat. The question is, how far should they be tightened?

Under federal law, "gatling guns" and "machine guns" are already heavily restricted. Some machine guns made in the 1980's can be purchased, but it can take a year, thousands of dollars, and lots of paperwork and intense background checks to do so.

[mjr]

I realize the majority are responsible but I also realize too many are irresponsible and the result of that is why I'd be willing to follow in the path of the UK or Australia or Canada.

The responsible far outweigh the irresponsible. And again: How do you keep the firearms out of the hands of those who "shouldn't have them" to begin with?

How many were illegally obtained? How many were legally obtained and the owners passed relevant background checks?

[Greenday]

The responsible far outweigh the irresponsible. And again: How do you keep the firearms out of the hands of those who "shouldn't have them" to begin with?

How many were illegally obtained? How many were legally obtained and the owners passed relevant background checks?

If they far outweigh the irresponsible, why are there so many shootings every single day in the country? So many innocent people gunned down just because the "responsible" crowd doesn't want their toys taken away.

[mjr]

If they far outweigh the irresponsible, why are there so many shootings every single day in the country? So many innocent people gunned down just because the "responsible" crowd doesn't want their toys taken away.

Then don't differentiate. Give yours up.

And the responsible ones aren't reported on because there's no sense in reporting on shootings that don't happen. Thousands (perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands) of people use and carry firearms safely every day. I live in a predominantly Conservative area of Texas. I can't tell you the last time I heard of any type of shooting where I live. And I can guarantee you that there are a LOT of people here who carry guns.

When was the last time you heard of an NRA member going on a shooting spree?

[Tanasi]

A headline of less than 100 firearms were used in an irresponsible manner yet 100s of millions were responsibly used or left idol. The responsible owners must be punished for the actions of the irresponsible.

[Greenday]

Then don't differentiate. Give yours up.

And the responsible ones aren't reported on because there's no sense in reporting on shootings that don't happen. Thousands (perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands) of people use and carry firearms safely every day. I live in a predominantly Conservative area of Texas. I can't tell you the last time I heard of any type of shooting where I live. And I can guarantee you that there are a LOT of people here who carry guns.

When was the last time you heard of an NRA member going on a shooting spree?

You do realize this whole thread was started because some idiot who shouldn't have had guns got guns and shot up a church, right?

Found an interesting website that gathers shootings statistics: http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/charts-and-maps

I linked the maps. Looks like Texas has had it's fair amount of idiots misusing guns.

[Gravekeeper]

For a fairly new hunter it's not hard and if the hunter has "buck fever" even more so, but that's no excuse to not make positive of your target.
What caught my eye in this article is the hunter took a 200 yard shot with a single shot pistol. That's a long freaking shot, even with a rifle caliber round in a 14 inch barrel that's way too far to make an ethical shot.

That was the first thing that lept out at me too. Out after dark, deer hunting with a pistol of all things taking shots at 200 yards?

The responsible far outweigh the irresponsible. And again: How do you keep the firearms out of the hands of those who "shouldn't have them" to begin with?

With, you know, proper checks and laws. Followed up with laws concerning proper use and storage.

This whole argument is pointless. It's empirically obvious that America has a gun problem. It's undeniable. Americans, when asked about individual gun control policies, offer majority support for them. It's basically just Congress and the NRA standing in the way of accomplishing anything alongside those who take up the banner of their message.

The only thing you're offering as a counter argument is the classic "'No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens".

[mjr]

You do realize this whole thread was started because some idiot who shouldn't have had guns got guns and shot up a church, right?

Yes. And he passed background checks because information wasn't input into a database used for background checks.

Found an interesting website that gathers shootings statistics: http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/charts-and-maps

I linked the maps. Looks like Texas has had it's fair amount of idiots misusing guns.

It's also had it's fair amount of responsible gun owners not shooting people.

[mjr]

With, you know, proper checks and laws.

The shooter in Texas passed background checks. You're aware of that, right? He passed them because his transgressions weren't entered into a database.

Followed up with laws concerning proper use and storage.

Proper according to who? You?