ID - 2 year boy accidentally shoots and kills mother in walmart in ths US

[sonjay]

I find that hard to believe because in my experience, people who want gun control want just that - gun control/regulation. Not to ban all guns. You mentioned New Zealand earlier. They've got very strict gun control but they haven't banned most guns. I get that you don't like the idea of controlling people's use/ownership of guns, but it is not the same as banning all guns.

See:

Every day, something good happens at the state or community level that makes getting guns a little harder—and keeps families a little safer. That it might happen a little faster is a rational hope, and a proper holiday wish.

It's been made clear in the U.S. that a total firearm ban is not going to happen. Ever. So the gun-banners turn to making it harder and more expensive to be a gun owner.

People cry rivers over any requirement that people have to show ID to register to vote. Because showing a photo ID is soooooo difficult and complex and expensive that too many people would be disenfranchised. But those same people think it's perfectly okay to require background checks, waiting periods, fingerprints, fees, classes, etc., etc., etc.

Emily Gets Her Gun:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2011/oct/5/miller-emily-gets-her-gun/

It took Emily Miller weeks, cost hundreds of dollars (in addition to the purchase price of the gun), required multiple trips to the police station and other bureaucratic offices, and multiple trips outside of D.C. to buy a gun legally in D.C. Yes -- D.C.'s gun-purchase law required that she make multiple trips outside of D.C. in order to legally buy a gun in D.C. from the one single FFL dealer allowed to conduct business in D.C. (And no, she wasn't permitted to buy a gun outside of D.C. and bring it into D.C. That would have been highly illegal.)

Gun control laws are mostly aimed at eliminating gun ownership by making gun ownership so expensive and difficult that people just don't have the time or money to go through the process. It's seen by many gun-control advocates as way to achieve a de facto gun ban.

 

[kline]

I'm not sure why people think gun control means a total ban on guns :dunno:

There has been alot of money and time spent inciting the paranoia behind that mind set by lobbyists with a vested interest in maintaining their political power and influence in Washington.
If you dont have pesky objective reality to back up your position you cant go wrong going straight for the Fear Center of the brain.
They dont have to worry about some tragedy like this one involving children raining on their parade they can bury it with denial and mindless equivocation or if the tragedy is large and horrific enough they can simply claim it was a massive Hoax perpetuated by enemies of the Gun Lobby .
Not a problem with so many absolutely eager to believe such nonsense.
You also cant go wrong telling folks what they WANT to hear.
The NRA has wielded a lop sided and disproportionate amount of power on Capital Hill for a long time they arent letting go of it for nuthin no matter what they have to convince people of.
Surely the fact that the politicians the NRA endorses and throws the weight of its membership's votes behind also happen to be the ones whose main priority is the Corporate agenda and the special interests of the Extremely Wealthy is merely coincidence

 

[sonjay]

Back ten or twenty years ago all they did was take your money. These days they take your money and shoot you anyway.

Or stab you to death, or beat you to death.

I've seen so many news reports of people who cooperated with the robber, who then killed the person anyway.

I wouldn't kill someone over property. But I also won't assume that all they want is my property.

 

[sonjay]

There has been alot of money and time spent inciting the paranoia behind that mind set by those with a vested interest in maintaining their political power and influence in Washington.
If you dont have pesky objective reality to back up your position you cant go wrong going straight for the Fear Center of the brain.

Yes, exactly, the fear of guns and legal gun ownership arises from the fear-mongering of those who go straight for the Fear Center of the brain.

They promoted that fear in Chicago when Illinois finally got legal concealed carry. The reality was, it was a big nothing. Not only are legal concealed carriers not engaging in wild and random shootouts over minor disagreements, but homicide has gone down since legal concealed carry came to Illinois.

Unfounded fear leads to gun bans.

Reality shows us the opposite.

 

[TrackerSam]

Or stab you to death, or beat you to death.

I've seen so many news reports of people who cooperated with the robber, who then killed the person anyway.

I wouldn't kill someone over property. But I also won't assume that all they want is my property.

I sat on a jury where a gang banger just walked up to a parked couple and started shooting. He was trying to establish a reputation as a bad and wasn't trying to rob them. Just trying to show his homeboys how ruthless he could be.

 

[Brightbird]

<modsnip>

Yeah I realise that. I was just thinking of my experience in Australia though. It's hard to explain. Everyone I've spoken about it with, and for some I will assume, it is a no-brainer to have gun control. But I've never personally heard that all guns should be banned. Heck, I like strict gun control and I'm a vegetarian but I wouldn't support a total ban on guns for hunting.

 

[sonjay]

Yeah I realise that. I was just thinking of my experience in Australia though. It's hard to explain. Everyone I've spoken about it with, and for some I will assume, it is a no-brainer to have gun control. But I've never personally heard that all guns should be banned. Heck, I like strict gun control and I'm a vegetarian but I wouldn't support a total ban on guns for hunting.

Well, we've certainly heard it in this country, plenty.

DiFi:

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center:
"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."

Rosie O'Donnell:
"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."

Barack Obama (during conversation with economist and author John Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s)
"I don’t believe people should to be able to own guns."

ETA: Obama is, of course, protected by armed Secret Service agents. Rosie has armed bodyguards. DiFi herself has a concealed-carry permit (one of the very very few issued in California). They certainly seem to believe in guns for their own protection; they just don't want to allow other people the right to effective self-defense.

 

[sonjay]

Hmmm..... how is it that the UK seems to still have such a gun problem, when supposedly people can't get guns there:

[h=1]UK: Criminals still get guns despite country&#8217;s draconian laws[/h]http://www.guns.com/2014/01/15/uk-criminals-using-antique-homemade-guns/

From the article:

Criminals in the U.K. used guns in no fewer than 9000 instances in 2013. Great Britain has some of the most draconian firearms laws in the world.

Shouldn't the UK be pretty much free of gun crime? How does this happen? Does GB have its own version of Sen. Yee?

 

[kline]

I sat on a jury where a gang banger just walked up to a parked couple and started shooting. He was trying to establish a reputation as a bad and wasn't trying to rob them. Just trying to show his homeboys how ruthless he could be.

.....and lions and tigers and gang banging BEARS,Oh MY!!!!

 

[Brightbird]

Well, we've certainly heard it in this country, plenty.

DiFi:

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center:
"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."

Rosie O'Donnell:
"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."

Barack Obama (during conversation with economist and author John Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s)
"I don’t believe people should to be able to own guns."

ETA: Obama is, of course, protected by armed Secret Service agents. Rosie has armed bodyguards. DiFi herself has a concealed-carry permit (one of the very very few issued in California). They certainly seem to believe in guns for their own protection; they just don't want to allow other people the right to effective self-defense.

They're anecdotes and not representative from what I've read. Don't the latest surveys show that most Americans support the right to own guns? I will say though, I support handguns being very strictly regulated as they are in Australia (and New Zealand). And what Obama said 20 odd years ago about guns is pretty much irrelevant to me. Gun law hasn't changed while he's been president (as far as I know), unfortunately.

 

[Sonya610]

Yeah I realise that. I was just thinking of my experience in Australia though. It's hard to explain. Everyone I've spoken about it with, and for some I will assume, it is a no-brainer to have gun control. But I've never personally heard that all guns should be banned. Heck, I like strict gun control and I'm a vegetarian but I wouldn't support a total ban on guns for hunting.

You need to understand something about the US. We are NOT one big happy melting pot. The bottom line is there is a huge lack of overall trust! I am not just talking about individuals not trusting others on the street, I mean as a whole we are not a homogenous society, we are not one "large extended family", it isn't just politics, there are fundamental differences in the way American's view this society and the problems faced by members of this society.

In societies with a higher trust factor it is a lot easier to come to an agreement. If the majority in the society agree on the problems and causes it is a whole lot easier to trust them to have YOUR best interest at heart. If you give them the benefit of the doubt and go along with their ideas and it turns out to be a mistake then the TRUST ensures you can rely on them to help you change course.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Like France?

France has the most liberal gun laws in Europe.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Yeah, we would.

Criminals can kill me with a knife, a hammer, their hands and feet, a machete, a rock, a baseball bat......

Then you could defend yourself with the same items. OR of course your perfectly legal handgun or rifle. The thing is gun regulation does not equal a total ban, gun regulations are about putting some safety measures in place to reduce the number of gun deaths.

 

[TrackerSam]

Then you could defend yourself with the same items.

That doesn't work when your outsized and/or outnumbered.You can't walk around town with a rifle. Hand guns are already regulated.

 

[CoolJ]

A. Criminals don't care about laws and can get guns anyway. Witness Chicago, NY, & D.C.

B. If they can't get guns, they'll simply shift to using other weapons.

Oh I agree sonjay. When there are three hundred million guns in one country, criminals in that country are going to be able to get guns no matter what regulations are brought in.
I think to make a true change in the US is going to take decades, maybe even a century or two! But you gotta start somewhere.

But I dont think it is true that criminals don't care about laws. On the contrary, I think it is among the only roadblocks that keep them from their livelihood. I think they care very much about what the laws are. JMO

 

[CoolJ]

I can go buy a gun tomorrow from a licensed dealer, and then turn around and sell it to my next-door neighbor. If I do that too many times, the ATF will consider me to be acting as a dealer without an FFL and will come down on me like a ton of bricks. The law prohibits people from "engaging in the business" of firearm sales without an FFL. It does not prohibit people from selling their personally owned guns.

There are laws about knowingly selling or providing a gun to a prohibited person. There are laws about straw purchases. There are lots and lots of laws governing gun ownership, sales, possession, transportation, carrying, storage, etc.

The laws are weird. I can buy a gun as a gift for someone who is legally allowed to own firearms -- completely legal. But it's not legal for that same person to give me money and have me go to the gun shop and buy a gun for him.

I gave my husband a cowboy gun once as a gift. As a gift, it was completely legal. It would have been illegal for him to give me the money for the purchase price and ask me to stop by the gun shop and pick it up for him.

Many of the "universal background check" laws that have been proposed -- and even passed in some areas -- would make it illegal for my husband to hold one of my guns. Not even talking about shooting it, or carrying it -- simply hold it. Some of those proposed laws would make it illegal for a hunter to hand his gun to his buddy for safety while he climbed a fence.

Sounds like you are advocating for more gun control laws

 

[sonjay]

Sounds like you are advocating for more gun control laws

Nope, just the opposite.

I have a CCW. That means I've been background-checked and fingerprinted and judged "not a threat" sufficiently enough to carry a concealed firearm in public. I already own multiple firearms, including handguns, shotguns and rifles. I've never shot anyone. The worst legal trouble I've ever been in has been the occasional speeding ticket. Yet, anytime I go to a gun shop or gun show and buy a gun from an FFL licensed dealer, they have to make me fill out a 4473 and call in to Big Brother to get approval for me to buy a gun. Because.... why, exactly?

I think it's stupid beyond belief that I can buy my husband a gun as a gift, but it's illegal for him to give me the money to go to the gun shop and buy one for him. He has a CCW himself; it's not like he's a prohibited person.

 

[LinasK]

And not just Mexican gangs. There will always be people like Leland Yee -- politicians who support gun control while importing illegal firearms.

Leland Yee is no longer in office, so you can stop bringing him up as an example of a politician in office. He was kicked out because of the scandal.

 

[LinasK]

Nope, just the opposite.

I have a CCW. That means I've been background-checked and fingerprinted and judged "not a threat" sufficiently enough to carry a concealed firearm in public. I already own multiple firearms, including handguns, shotguns and rifles. I've never shot anyone. The worst legal trouble I've ever been in has been the occasional speeding ticket. Yet, anytime I go to a gun shop or gun show and buy a gun from an FFL licensed dealer, they have to make me fill out a 4473 and call in to Big Brother to get approval for me to buy a gun. Because.... why, exactly?

I think it's stupid beyond belief that I can buy my husband a gun as a gift, but it's illegal for him to give me the money to go to the gun shop and buy one for him. He has a CCW himself; it's not like he's a prohibited person.

It's not stupid. If they didn't, there would be more murder-for-hires if someone could just give somebody money to go purchase a gun for them, and how would we know if the person buying the gun was sane??? I'm glad there are background checks for every purchase, just too bad some are "instant checks" instead of making them wait for a cooling off period to make sure everything is legit.
And... just maybe a person who has bought multiple firearms (not saying you) is building up an armory of weapons to be used in an attack, such as a terrorist???

 

[sonjay]

It's not stupid. If they didn't, there would be more murder-for-hires if someone could just give somebody money to go purchase a gun for them, and how would we know if the person buying the gun was sane??? I'm glad there are background checks for every purchase, just too bad some are "instant checks" instead of making them wait for a cooling off period to make sure everything is legit.
And... just maybe a person who has bought multiple firearms (not saying you) is building up an armory of weapons to be used in an attack, such as a terrorist???

Seriously?

Do you really, seriously, think that there are people out there who want to hire someone to kill someone, but they don't because of the laws against straw purchases?

People who kill for hire don't buy their weapons from FFLs.