Just what is "common sense gun control?" How about a few examples?

[Duesenberg]

I provided you with an article link. STOP AVOIDING the obvious supported point I made.

And as I pointed out, it’s dated. There has been watershed change at the DOJ since Trump was elected president. Jeff Sessions AIN’T Eric holder. Please use a valid/up to date example.

 

[Duesenberg]

…Is there any form of firearm or explosive you feel could be restricted without infringing your freedom wrongly? A tank? An ICBM? How do you decide where to draw the line?

Many learned people agree that the line was drawn for us with the crafting of the Second Amendment. That the firearms of the infantrymen be the firearms of the people. While the sidearm of today’s infantrymen are readily available to law-abiding citizens, the select-fire machine gun is not – thus we must make do with the lesser semi-automatic, modern sporting rifles.

 

[Bradskii]

Anyway, that’s just my opinion, but I personally don’t want to live in a world where my suburban neighbour keeps a gun or two in his home or under his jacket.

Likewise. It’s kinda comforting that in Oz, if your wife or daughter gets into some minor argument in a road rage situation, the guy in the other car who has had a few beers is not going to have a gun in his glove compartment. Yes, the bad guys will always be able to get guns. But in Australia they mostly use them to shoot each other. Which is fine with me.

It’s not that guns in themselves are a problem. It’s not the people who own the guns in themselves are a problem. It’s the mentality of the people who own guns is the problem.

They just don’t get it. Never have and never will. So we will keep reading about more and more mass shootings and horrendous death rates because gun owners are more than prepared to put up with the regular destruction of life to maintain the status quo. If that’s the type of world they want to live in, then so be it.

They’re fond of saying that the only time they are going to lose their guns is when they are prised from their cold, dead hands. But the only cold, dead hands we get to see belong to the children in Sandy Hook type shootings and to kids out for a night of music and fun in Vegas.

 

[FiveLinden]

I see that the New Zealand gun death ratio is 1.5 per year per million. The US is in third place behind Equador and Mexico with 32 per million.

 

[Duesenberg]

Likewise. It’s kinda comforting that in Oz, if your wife or daughter gets into some minor argument in a road rage situation, the guy in the other car who has had a few beers is not going to have a gun in his glove compartment. Yes, the bad guys will always be able to get guns. But in Australia they mostly use them to shoot each other. Which is fine with me.

That silly “argument” is used here in the US too. Odd how what you describe rarely happens in those states that have shall-issue concealed carry permits – always far lower than those state that do everything they can not to issue permits. Keep in mind that the criminal cares nothing about a permit or the fact the firearm he carries is illegal. Like it or not, even in OZ, the criminals still have firearms.

It’s not that guns in themselves are a problem. It’s not the people who own the guns in themselves are a problem. It’s the mentality of the people who own guns is the problem.

Does your blanket statement cover everyone that owns a gun?

They just don’t get it. Never have and never will. So we will keep reading about more and more mass shootings and horrendous death rates because gun owners are more than prepared to put up with the regular destruction of life to maintain the status quo. If that’s the type of world they want to live in, then so be it.

I feel the same way about those that truly believe “gun control” would have prevented the massacre in Las Vegas.

They’re fond of saying that the only time they are going to lose their guns is when they are prised from their cold, dead hands. But the only cold, dead hands we get to see belong to the children in Sandy Hook type shootings and to kids out for a night of music and fun in Vegas.

And people like you are fond of believing that “gun control” will work…

 

[Duesenberg]

I see that the New Zealand gun death ratio is 1.5 per year per million. The US is in third place behind Equador and Mexico with 32 per million.

Please compare the TOTAL total NZ murder rate with the USA’s… Then compare NZ’s total violent crime rate to the USA’s.

Given NZ’s tiny size, then compare its numbers to Vermont, Montana, the Dakotas, Washington, Oregon and Iowa. Let us know what you find…

 

[FiveLinden]

I am not talking murder. I am talking gun deaths, gun injuries and gun crime.

 

[Duesenberg]

I am not talking murder. I am talking gun deaths, gun injuries and gun crime.

So you’re not concerned about murder? You seem to want to cook the numbers until they fit your beliefs.

 

[SuperLuigi]

That’s really a strawman argument because

1. Those weapons are only in demand by despot regimes who do not have them. And you can probably guess that some of the folks who are for gun control are fine with dictators getting such weapons because our government has them.
2. Using those kinds of armaments actually work against the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. It’s not about who has the bigger, better more macho weapon but creating conditions of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. A weapon that is such a distraction and hard to maintain is neither.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Likewise. It’s kinda comforting that in Oz, if your wife or daughter gets into some minor argument in a road rage situation, the guy in the other car who has had a few beers is not going to have a gun in his glove compartment.

Really? And how often does that happen? That’s like saying if we find one bad same sex “marriage” we should make it illegal on that basis.

It’s the mentality of the people who own guns is the problem.

Actually, it’s not. The vast majority of firearm owners are responsible and hope they never have to use their weapons.

So we will keep reading about more and more mass shootings and horrendous death rates because gun owners are more than prepared to put up with the regular destruction of life to maintain the status quo. If that’s the type of world they want to live in, then so be it.

We already see what the rest of the world does. Brazil practically has all guns banned, but their murder and suicide rate from firearms alone is astronomical.

They’re fond of saying that the only time they are going to lose their guns is when they are prised from their cold, dead hands. But the only cold, dead hands we get to see belong to the children in Sandy Hook type shootings and to kids out for a night of music and fun in Vegas.

Funny how you don’t mention Chicago, which has more murders each year than capital cities in the middle east.

Fact is Sandy Hook and Vegas were gun-FREE zones. Maybe you can explain to me what why criminals who will break laws in the first place would even bother to follow some of kind feel-good solution like a sign that says no guns.

Nearly every single mass shooting in America in modern history has occurred in a gun free zone.

 

[Bradskii]

Like it or not, even in OZ, the criminals still have firearms.

The criminals rarely, if ever, use them against joe public. No-one down here worries in the slightest about being shot even conceding that the bad guys have guns. My son-in-law has been held up twice by someone with a gun. Once when he was a manager at a pub just as they were closing. It was the fact that there were no armed customers which prevented any deaths. The kid with the gun just wanted to scare people. There was no danger of anyone getting shot. Just give him the damn money and let the police find him.

And it would have been exactly the same situation if he’d rolled up with a bow and arrow, or a knife or a piece of wood with a nail it.

Does your blanket statement cover everyone that owns a gun?

Present company is included. Let’s face it, the OP wasn’t looking for any common sense gun controls. This was just an excuse for you to some venting.

I feel the same way about those that truly believe “gun control” would have prevented the massacre in Las Vegas.

As I said, it’s not a problem with guns, or people or even controls. It’s the attitude of gun owners such as yourself. Of course there are controls that you can put in place to reduce the carnage. One would have to be a lunatic not to realise that. It’s just that you, personally, are prepared to put up with the deaths to avoid those controls.

And people like you are fond of believing that “gun control” will work…

Certain controls will. You just prefer the alternative. Cold dead hands etc.

 

[upant]

I think “stop and frisk” and arresting people found with an illegal gun is a good method of gun control and reducing gun violence. It did good things for New York City. Unfortunately, it’s not popular because of concerns about racial profiling.

law enforcement is one of the few things that have been proven to work. can it be done without bias is the problem

 

[upant]

But is it common sense to have legal kits and bump stocks that can completely circumvent that ban by making a semi automatic turn into a fully automatic, such as the case in Vegas.

you can make a bump mechanism with a rubber band. you gonna ban them to when someone uses one on a spree? google it

 

[upant]

Keep up.

Trump Signs Bill Revoking Obama-Era Gun Checks for People With Mental Illnesses

The various reasons for people to be placed on a no-fly list are chosen because they have been deemed a threat to public safety. Arguing for people on the no-fly list to have access to purchase weapons is a perfect example of “no common sense”.

the aclu was against this gun grab

 

[upant]

If Paddock was throwing baseball bats or knives out of the 32nd floor, I bet the body count would have been lower. It was met with his particular form of disdain.

if he would have detonated the bomb material he had in his car it would have been higher.

just started reading through and i have seen only one post with old proposals. what will work?

 

[upant]

At the obvious risk of attack can I say that most countries in the civilised world have strict gun controls and as a very direct consequence a tiny proportion of the deaths which the US accepts as ‘the price of freedom’

It is a choice these deaths are not unavoidable.

let’s use australia as a gun ban that supposedly worked since it is a favorite of hillary and obama.

do you know there are more guns in aussieland now then before the ban. they have so many illegal guns they just had another amnesty. for the law and order type melbourne is more violent than new york, gun crimes are way up.

they had 14 mass killings in the 20 years prior to the ban and surprisingly had 14 mass killings in the 20 years since the ban

how is it working for them. now they have ms-13 and biker gangs smuggling guns in.

 

[Bradskii]

In the twenty years following the controls? ‘Mass killings’ consisted of three bad guys shooting each other, a family massacre and arson and blunt instrument attacks. Number of people actually shot? 13.

Number shot in the twenty years before gun controls? 106. Which I appreciate is like a bad weekend in Chicago for you guys but is still a lot down here.

 

[upant]

Duesenberg:

Gun control has proven not to work.

Since that is true, it is necessary to think of something else which will help the victims of these horrible crimes, if they are still living. Of course, if they are dead, having been gunned down, society should think of ways to help their families. One suggestion I read about was to required indemnity insurance on every gun sold or currently owned. If that particular gun is used in a crime, then the victims would be paid by the insurance company which holds the policy for that particular gun. It would be similar to requiring insurance when you own a car. The law would be such that a gun could not be sold without being registered and having the proper insurance, say 10 million dollars of insurance for each gun sold. Of course it would be higher for semi-automatic weapons. Anyone who owned a gun would be required to obtain the necessary insurance or turn in her gun. Any violation of said law would be heavily penalized.

this was a good idea when the gun control people pushed it but when the nra actually offered insurance the same people who wanted it was up in arms because they now call it murder insurance. imagine that

 

[Emeraldlady]

There is an irrational fear of gun prohibition that prevents a meaningful dialogue… yet many countries have survived and thrived with gun prohibition. I believe there is a mistaken principle at large that guns are an indispensable commodity to the average person like food and water… even though many countries have proven that principle false.

 

[upant]

I’m with you on this one, SusanneT. I’m in the UK. We have had a small number of mass shootings over the years, but the response to those was a tightening of already strict gun ownership laws. Wiki gives the facts and figures, but basically our death rate from firearm attacks is very low.

Basically, unless you can prove you need a firearm for a legitimate purpose you can’t have one, and the type of firearm you are allowed to own will also be restricted.

That works for us in the UK, because most people will never even want to touch a gun, let alone own one. In the USA, where gun ownership is seen as normal, respectable and a right, it’s far more complicated. You have to change minds, hearts and also stand up to powerful lobby groups.

yet london was just deemed more dangerous than new york city.