Responsible Gun Owners

[Stryker]

Hi guys,

I know we have a lot of responsible gun owners here on the site, and I also know there is a problem in this country with mass shootings. There doesn't seem to be a good way to regulate, and currently there is no deterrent or responsibility to these horrific crimes. I wanted to start a discussion to see what things could be done, to help this problem we now face.

To be clear, I have always been pro-gun and do not believe it should be legislated against in any way. You should be able to have the gun you want, the caliber you want, and the ammo capacity. It is protected constitutionally, and is any American's right to own a gun if they choose.

So if we are locked into this constitutional perspective, here are my ideas to help keep responsible gun owners, responsible. Feel free to add ideas or comment:

A couple basic laws, some of these may already be in place:

Convicted Felons can not own firearms after they are released from prison.

Non American citizens are not allowed to own or carry a firearm, unless they are at a gun range. This goes for vacationers, international delegates, green card/visa holders, and immigrants who are not yet citizens.

No one with a history of mental illness should be allowed to own a gun. I.e. if you have been treated at a facility, in an overnight capacity, because your behavior was harmful to yourself and/or others, you fall in this category.

No one under the age of 18/21 can conceal carry (I think this already exists).

No one under the age of 21 can own 'assault style' rifles. This has been debated on this site, and I believe the best way to phrase this is: No one under the age of 21 can own 'assault style' rifle, unless you are currently enlisted in the military. This allows for our 18-21 to still use them in the military, and they would be over 21 after their minimum service is over, and are already trained to use the firearm.

You may not own a firearm if you are dishonorably discharged from the military. We have had some trouble with former service members, who are dishonorably discharged, and go on to do maximum damage with a firearm. The military sees these people 24/7, and if you are being discharged dishonorably due to reckless behavior, or endangering the lives of your fellow military personnel, they are best to start setting the standard when releasing these people back into civilian life. [Those of you who have served may be able to clarify they types of dishonorable discharge, and shed light on this reasoning or streamline the rule]

I think most of us have heard some of the above ideas. The next set of ideas, I feel, define what it means to be a responsible gun owner. We've all stated it's not the gun, it's the person, so we need people to take responsibility:

All gun owners must complete a gun safety course before owning a firearm. This is good for all ages, and it the most responsible way to teach people how to care for and safely store their firearm.

You need a license to own a firearm. This one may be the hardest to regulate, but i'd consider a hunting license, or issue a license after a gun safety course to make sure the owners are responsible.

All guns must be locked away safely so only the owner has access to the firearm. I'm fine with displaying old firearms as wall hangs, but the firing pin must be removed if it is a decorative piece.

If a firearm is not locked away, and a crime happens with it, the gun owner is also responsible for the crime. If the gun owner had the firearm safely locked away, and the safe was broken into/ stolen, the gun owner would not be responsible for the crime, but it is their immediate responsibility to notify the local police department of the firearms taken and serial numbers for them.

I think this last point would go a long way in aiding against mass shootings. How many times do we hear a kid takes the gun from a family member, to go on a shooting spree? Make the gun owners responsible/accountable, and I feel the country will get safer.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

We don't have a problem with mass shootings. You've been told to believe we do. Go look at the facts and the #s and the occurrences. Stop drinking their Kool-aid Cope. They have you worried about mass shootings, just like they have people worried about Global Warming (that is now global cooling). Think for yourself man.

Here's just one example, school shootings:

Schools are safer than they were in the 90s, and school shootings are not more common than they used to be, researchers say

The deadly school shooting this month in Parkland, Florida, has ignited national outrage and calls for action on gun reform. But while certain policies may help decrease gun violence in general, it’s unlikely that any of them will prevent mass school shootings, according to James Alan Fox, the Lipman Family Professor of Criminology, Law, and Public Policy at Northeastern.

Since 1996, there have been 16 multiple victim shootings in schools, or incidents involving 4 or more victims and at least 2 deaths by firearms, excluding the assailant.

Of these, 8 are mass shootings, or incidents involving 4 or more deaths, excluding the assailant.

“This is not an epidemic”

Mass school shootings are incredibly rare events. In research publishing later this year, Fox and doctoral student Emma Fridel found that on average, mass murders occur between 20 and 30 times per year, and about one of those incidents on average takes place at a school.




Fridel and Fox used data collected by USA Today, the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Report, Congressional Research Service, Gun Violence Archive, Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries, Mother Jones, Everytown for Gun Safety, and a NYPD report on active shooters.

Their research also finds that shooting incidents involving students have been declining since the 1990s.

Four times the number of children were killed in schools in the early 1990s than today, Fox said.

“There is not an epidemic of school shootings,” he said, adding that more kids are killed each year from pool drownings or bicycle accidents. There are around 55 million school children in the United States, and on average over the past 25 years, about 10 students per year were killed by gunfire at school, according to Fox and Fridel’s research.

 

[ark steel]

you have no mention of background checks, but, maybe that goes along with the licensing?

In any event, i strongly disagree with the following.

No one under the age of 21 can own 'assault style' rifles. This has been debated on this site, and I believe the best way to phrase this is: No one under the age of 21 can own 'assault style' rifle, unless you are currently enlisted in the military. This allows for our 18-21 to still use them in the military, and they would be over 21 after their minimum service is over, and are already trained to use the firearm.

Simply because "assault style' rifles is a made-up term. Very slippery slope which leads to any semi-auto rifles/shotguns, and on and on and on.

You may not own a firearm if you are dishonorably discharged from the military. We have had some trouble with former service members, who are dishonorably discharged, and go on to do maximum damage with a firearm. The military sees these people 24/7, and if you are being discharged dishonorably due to reckless behavior, or endangering the lives of your fellow military personnel, they are best to start setting the standard when releasing these people back into civilian life. [Those of you who have served may be able to clarify they types of dishonorable discharge, and shed light on this reasoning or streamline the rule]

Depends upon the reason for the dishonorable discharge, i guess? Not sure how I feel about this. You hit your OIC because he is a dumbass (and many are) and get dishonorably discharged because you are "violent", you lose your right for life? Maybe if it reached the level of felony, they would just be treated as felons.

All gun owners must complete a gun safety course before owning a firearm. This is good for all ages, and it the most responsible way to teach people how to care for and safely store their firearm.

You don't need to pass a test to exercise other rights, the right to bear arms is no difference. I'd be for making gun safety mandatory in all schools......but they are too busy trying to make up different ways to teach math over what has worked for hundreds of years and keeping kids from learning actual life lessons. Gun safety as part of health class rather than gender identification should be a no-brainer.

You need a license to own a firearm. This one may be the hardest to regulate, but i'd consider a hunting license, or issue a license after a gun safety course to make sure the owners are responsible.

See above. No license needed to exercise a right. In addition, this is, essentially, registration, which will, eventually, lead to confiscation. Well, attempted confiscation.

All guns must be locked away safely so only the owner has access to the firearm.

Already the law if you have minors in your house. No minors, no reason to lock it up. I suppose, if you have a felon or mentally unstable person, too. If it is just me and my wife living in my house (as if), guns will not be in the safe. You know, if not for the loss of them in the Everglades tragedy. They are "locked up" in my house.

If a firearm is not locked away, and a crime happens with it, the gun owner is also responsible for the crime. If the gun owner had the firearm safely locked away, and the safe was broken into/ stolen, the gun owner would not be responsible for the crime, but it is their immediate responsibility to notify the local police department of the firearms taken and serial numbers for them.

This should be obvious, but is not. SOMEONE MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. Well, someone other than the shooter.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

If a firearm is not locked away, and a crime happens with it, the gun owner is also responsible for the crime. If the gun owner had the firearm safely locked away, and the safe was broken into/ stolen, the gun owner would not be responsible for the crime, but it is their immediate responsibility to notify the local police department of the firearms taken and serial numbers for them.

I think this last point would go a long way in aiding against mass shootings. How many times do we hear a kid takes the gun from a family member, to go on a shooting spree? Make the gun owners responsible/accountable, and I feel the country will get safer.

I believe the last point is already law in Pennsylvania.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

There doesn't seem to be a good way to regulate, and currently there is no deterrent or responsibility to these horrific crimes.

We use laws and punishment as deterrent for criminal behavior. Don’t understand what your point about responsibility is.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

We use laws and pumishment as deterrent for criminal behavior. Don’t understand what your point about responsibility is.

Yep. We passed laws outlawing the use of illegal drugs and it fixed that problem.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

The gun is not the culprit. The human is. To wit, some intelligent jurisdictions are working to address problems the sane way. Don't take guns from law abiding citizens. Instead, meet the perpetrators of violence with security and weapons.

Armed teachers become a reality in Georgia

The school shooting in Parkland, Fla., convinced school Superintendent Daniel Brigman that his plan to arm teachers and other Laurens County, Ga., school personnel needed to go beyond the idea phase.

“I’ve had this discussion repeatedly with different boards of education for the last 14 years,” Brigman said. His school district is southeast of Macon and the first in Georgia to make the move. “What happened in Florida heightened the level of awareness and concern that we needed a procedure in place to protect the safety of our schools.”

As students across metro Atlanta and the country head to school each day, the adults in their lives grapple with how to keep kids safe. More police? More guns? Fewer guns? More locks? More cameras? More technology?

Laurens County’s school board approved arming teachers last month. The Florida shooting seemed to set the dominoes falling. Georgia made it legal for school systems to arm teachers in 2012, but this month the Fannin County Board of Education will consider a similar decision, and there are discussions in others, such as Floyd and Bleckley counties. Most metro Atlanta school system leaders have so far declined to consider it, though Clayton County Superintendent Morcease Beasley said after Florida that the issue was “more complicated than a simple yes or no (for or against); it will require a multifaceted response from more than a single entity making a decision.”

As for arming classroom instructors, teachers, parents and law enforcement are on both sides of the issue. And the conversation has gained volume with recent events, from school shootings to school walkouts and a school-violence and gun protest march in Atlanta that drew an estimated 30,000 people.

According to data compiled by the Washington Post, 210,000 students at 213 schools have experienced gun violence at school since the 1999 shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado. When you consider the tens of millions of schoolchildren, that number is tiny. But this year alone, there have been 13 school shootings, according to media reports.

 

[Stryker]

We use laws and pumishment as deterrent for criminal behavior. Don’t understand what your point about responsibility is.

Mostly fiscal and criminal responsibilities for gun owners.

Tim, this is a discussion thread on holding people accountable, not an attack on guns, nor a debate on safety of schools. I'm not for removing a single gun or restricting them whatsoever, but we have to hold gun owners accountable, since we refuse to allow laws to be written to restrict our gun ownership rights.

Yes background checks should be part of the license, and to ensure the potential gun owner has taken the safety course.

Ark, can you clarify your views on licensing gun owners being a gateway to taking guns? We currently license car owners, yet no one is coming to take our cars.

I also understand the 'assault style weapons' argument is a hot button. Probably the best to restrict weapons by maximum rounds fired per 10 seconds and capacity of the firearm. Still don't think they should be illegal, but setting an age restriction could be a compromise.

I understand not having a license to exercise a right, but our other rights can't directly kill people. It's a right that does come with more responsibility. And I love your idea for teaching gun safety in schools. I know liberals would fight it, because we'd have to have guns in schools to teach kids how to properly clean, load, unload, hold, holster, safely store, and care for it. Putting guns in schools would make heads explode...

 

[Stryker]

The gun is not the culprit. The human is. To wit, some intelligent jurisdictions are working to address problems the sane way. Don't take guns from law abiding citizens. Instead, meet the perpetrators of violence with security and weapons.

Armed teachers become a reality in Georgia

The school shooting in Parkland, Fla., convinced school Superintendent Daniel Brigman that his plan to arm teachers and other Laurens County, Ga., school personnel needed to go beyond the idea phase.

“I’ve had this discussion repeatedly with different boards of education for the last 14 years,” Brigman said. His school district is southeast of Macon and the first in Georgia to make the move. “What happened in Florida heightened the level of awareness and concern that we needed a procedure in place to protect the safety of our schools.”

As students across metro Atlanta and the country head to school each day, the adults in their lives grapple with how to keep kids safe. More police? More guns? Fewer guns? More locks? More cameras? More technology?

Laurens County’s school board approved arming teachers last month. The Florida shooting seemed to set the dominoes falling. Georgia made it legal for school systems to arm teachers in 2012, but this month the Fannin County Board of Education will consider a similar decision, and there are discussions in others, such as Floyd and Bleckley counties. Most metro Atlanta school system leaders have so far declined to consider it, though Clayton County Superintendent Morcease Beasley said after Florida that the issue was “more complicated than a simple yes or no (for or against); it will require a multifaceted response from more than a single entity making a decision.”

As for arming classroom instructors, teachers, parents and law enforcement are on both sides of the issue. And the conversation has gained volume with recent events, from school shootings to school walkouts and a school-violence and gun protest march in Atlanta that drew an estimated 30,000 people.

According to data compiled by the Washington Post, 210,000 students at 213 schools have experienced gun violence at school since the 1999 shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado. When you consider the tens of millions of schoolchildren, that number is tiny. But this year alone, there have been 13 school shootings, according to media reports.

Hey Tim,

Pump the brakes man. Not an attack on guns, like the other threads you post in. Come up with some ideas and solutions instead of copy pasting the place.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Not an attack on guns, like the other threads you post in. Come up with some ideas and solutions instead of copy pasting the place.

You're missing the point. When you can establish that THERE IS A PROBLEM with mass shootings, then I suggest we find a solution.

There isn't.

According to The National Safety Council, the chances of dying via a mass shooting are 1 in 110,154 — about the same chance of dying from a dog attack or legal execution.

You want us to discuss a "problem" that is on par with dog attacks.

There is a hysteria in our society right the moment about mass shootings. It is manufactured hysteria because the problem really isn't a problem.

Put the brakes on indeed. This thread is advancing the notion that we have a problem with mass shootings. We simply do not.

 

[oneforthebus]

Most of what you advocate would not prevent the vast majority of these shootings.

Columbine shooters were too young to legally buy guns so they just had a friend buy them.

Adam Lanza was an adult with no violent or criminal history and would have passed any background check. Maybe if there was some kind of psych check he would have failed it, in any case his mother bought the guns. So yeah she should be legally responsible for him getting his hands on them. Unfortunately she's dead so...

Nik Cruz is an adult and would have passed any background check.

Seung-Hui Cho did not need an "assault style rifle" to kill 32 people at Virginia Tech. His handgun worked just fine for that. Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel killed 86 people with a truck in Nice, France. Dozens of others have been killed in vehicle attacks.

People who want to commit mass murder tend not to care about the legalities of getting their hands on a weapon. They will find a way. Gun laws only affect people willing to abide by laws.

I don't have a problem with someone having to pass a gun safety course or being responsible for keeping your guns out of the hands of others. I just don't think it's going to accomplish your goal of eliminating mass shootings.

P.S. I don't own guns so none of this really affects me but I also don't believe in passing ineffective laws that restrict the rights of others just so that we can "do something".

 

[oneforthebus]

We are focused too much on the means and too little on the who and the why. Better identification and supervision of individuals at risk of doing something like this is the only real way to meaningfully reduce these shootings. So many warning signs ignored in many of these cases!

Otherwise you're wasting your time and effort imposing restrictions and consequences on the millions of people who will never, ever do something like this while letting the few who might, slip through the cracks.

 

[bmoritz]

Some of your points are good Cope, but I think, IMHO, some are way off. First off, the whole "mental illness" is WAY TOO vague for me to be comfortable with. So, 20 years ago, you had a minor breakdown because of something traumatic in your life, needed some help, and have been fine since, but can never own a gun? NO EFF'N WAY!! And who determines who's "mentally ill"?

And I've said it before, and I'll say it again, making somebody wait until 21 to purchase "assault style weapons" (again, who determines what THAT is) is a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Basically (I'm paraphrasing) it states that citizens in similar situations need to be treated similarly. So in every state in the Union, you are an adult at age 18, correct? So with that being true, how can you say some US adults are "more adult" than other adults? They're either adults, or they're not. It's pretty simple. Therefore, with the age of majority comes all rights, privileges, and responsibilities, including ownership and use of any and all legal firearms. To limit this would be a clear violation.

As far as convicted felons, I can't agree with you there. It depends on what they've done. How is it fair if somebody committed a non violent felony, did their time, and then has their Constitutional rights violated for life? Same goes for your discharge comment.

I think your ideas are coming from good intentions, and I get it. But good intentions does not warrant violating others' Constitutional rights. One thing I do agree with you on, and have been advocating for a while, is taking a gun safety course before you can purchase a gun. I don't see this as a violation of rights, and it makes sense. To me, it's the same thing as you have to pass a drivers safety test before you can get a driver's license. It won't stop mass shootings, but to me, it's always a good idea to make sure there is proper training before using a tool that can be deadly if mishandled.

 

[Superman]

are there people in this country who should not have guns? absolutely there are.

in a perfect utopia - and this country is not one, nor will there ever be - mental illnesses or syndromes or anything that can categorize suicidal thoughts or the desire to hurt others would raise a flag on the potential purchase of a gun. however, what about people who undergo family loss or financial hardship after buying a gun? what about overloads of stress people suffer that tend to build up over time? kinda difficult to enact a metric on that. though, ideally, a database that would be incorporated by mental health practitioners that would be used to determine if someone under mental evaluation would be the best way to prevent someone with suicidal or homicidal thoughts from buying a gun.

therein, though, lies the problems:
1) what about after purchasing a gun?
2) how to prevent government from over-stepping?
3) how to pay for this database
4) how to train people to use the database
5) how to add/remove someone from the database
6) how someone could request to be removed
7) who pays for the database?

Ark, though, said it correctly. Instead of teaching gender-roles and advising on gender education, we should be teaching worthwhile life lessons. How to properly and safely handle a firearm, how to clean one and - most especially - teaching the value of life, and teaching respect would go a long ******* way towards curing many of the ills that plague this great nation.

 

[Sarge]

You open by stating this.......

To be clear, I have always been pro-gun and do not believe it should be legislated against in any way. You should be able to have the gun you want, the caliber you want, and the ammo capacity. It is protected constitutionally, and is any American's right to own a gun if they choose.

Then add this.

No one under the age of 18/21 can conceal carry (I think this already exists).

No one under the age of 21 can own 'assault style' rifles. This has been debated on this site, and I believe the best way to phrase this is: No one under the age of 21 can own 'assault style' rifle, unless you are currently enlisted in the military. This allows for our 18-21 to still use them in the military, and they would be over 21 after their minimum service is over, and are already trained to use the firearm.

All gun owners must complete a gun safety course before owning a firearm. This is good for all ages, and it the most responsible way to teach people how to care for and safely store their firearm.

You need a license to own a firearm. This one may be the hardest to regulate, but i'd consider a hunting license, or issue a license after a gun safety course to make sure the owners are responsible.

All guns must be locked away safely so only the owner has access to the firearm. I'm fine with displaying old firearms as wall hangs, but the firing pin must be removed if it is a decorative piece.

If a firearm is not locked away, and a crime happens with it, the gun owner is also responsible for the crime. If the gun owner had the firearm safely locked away, and the safe was broken into/ stolen, the gun owner would not be responsible for the crime, but it is their immediate responsibility to notify the local police department of the firearms taken and serial numbers for them.

I think this last point would go a long way in aiding against mass shootings. How many times do we hear a kid takes the gun from a family member, to go on a shooting spree? Make the gun owners responsible/accountable, and I feel the country will get safer.

Sounds like a little bit of infringement. I bolded the one I disagree with the most. My "license" is that I have never broken the law, I have never killed anyone with any of my guns. And gun ownership is my right. The constitution guarantees it. Yet, I need to be licensed so that the government knows exactly where to go to get my guns. Nope. That isn't freedom.

I am sick to death of people blaming guns. Discipline your kids, stop medicating them so you don't have to parent, and raise them as responsible young adults instead of indulging their stupidity.

I get what you are trying to do here Cope. Just looking for a solution, when the people elected refuse to do their jobs. It is admirable.

But again, you are punishing law abiding citizens with more burdensome laws rather than criminals committing armed felonies. Clean up the **** that is "off the grid" so to speak, then talk to me about how you can better control someone that hasn't ever committed a crime with a gun. Law abiding, tax paying Americans are the first people punished for **** like this. And our voices are the first ones stifled in this debate. It is nothing but hypocrisy if our politicians refuse to address the killings that occur every day in every major city in America. I am tired of it.

Our politicians demonize law enforcement as a whole, and criminals are emboldened to flat out murder them. Now, good people do not want to sign up to be police officers. So now as a nation, we cannot address the things I stated above. So the answer is to punish me, because the government thinks I won't put up a fight. Try that and see how it works.

Rant complete.

 

[ZonaBurgh]

Responsible gun owners aren't the problem.

 

[hamster]

Responsible gun owners aren't the problem.

 

[Stryker]

You're missing the point. When you can establish that THERE IS A PROBLEM with mass shootings, then I suggest we find a solution.

There isn't.

According to The National Safety Council, the chances of dying via a mass shooting are 1 in 110,154 — about the same chance of dying from a dog attack or legal execution.

You want us to discuss a "problem" that is on par with dog attacks.

There is a hysteria in our society right the moment about mass shootings. It is manufactured hysteria because the problem really isn't a problem.

Put the brakes on indeed. This thread is advancing the notion that we have a problem with mass shootings. We simply do not.

Yes Tim, increase in mass shootings have decreased since 1990. I must have missed the world you live in.

Though this isn't a discussion about mass shootings, it's a discussion about responsible gun ownership. Are you a responsible gun owner? I sure as hell am.

 

[Stryker]

We are focused too much on the means and too little on the who and the why. Better identification and supervision of individuals at risk of doing something like this is the only real way to meaningfully reduce these shootings. So many warning signs ignored in many of these cases!

Otherwise you're wasting your time and effort imposing restrictions and consequences on the millions of people who will never, ever do something like this while letting the few who might, slip through the cracks.

These are good points. What would be your ideas on helping to make them reduce gun violence?

 

[Stryker]

Responsible gun owners aren't the problem.

Never said we were, just trying to find solutions to the problem. And if we are ever going to find it, it's going to be from responsible gun owners.

 

[Stryker]

You open by stating this.......



Then add this.



Sounds like a little bit of infringement. I bolded the one I disagree with the most. My "license" is that I have never broken the law, I have never killed anyone with any of my guns. And gun ownership is my right. The constitution guarantees it. Yet, I need to be licensed so that the government knows exactly where to go to get my guns. Nope. That isn't freedom.

I am sick to death of people blaming guns. Discipline your kids, stop medicating them so you don't have to parent, and raise them as responsible young adults instead of indulging their stupidity.

I get what you are trying to do here Cope. Just looking for a solution, when the people elected refuse to do their jobs. It is admirable.

But again, you are punishing law abiding citizens with more burdensome laws rather than criminals committing armed felonies. Clean up the **** that is "off the grid" so to speak, then talk to me about how you can better control someone that hasn't ever committed a crime with a gun. Law abiding, tax paying Americans are the first people punished for **** like this. And our voices are the first ones stifled in this debate. It is nothing but hypocrisy if our politicians refuse to address the killings that occur every day in every major city in America. I am tired of it.

Our politicians demonize law enforcement as a whole, and criminals are emboldened to flat out murder them. Now, good people do not want to sign up to be police officers. So now as a nation, we cannot address the things I stated above. So the answer is to punish me, because the government thinks I won't put up a fight. Try that and see how it works.

Rant complete.

Thanks for adding Sarge, and as a veteran, I was hoping you can add your input about the types of dishonorable discharge, because that is not my area of expertise.

I'm trying to understand the resistance of licensing gun owners. I know it is our right to own guns. That right of owning guns should not be diminished, and that I agree on. I also drive a car and I'm licensed to do so. I don't feel any of my rights are infringed upon to drive a car. It is every American's choice to drive a car, or own a gun. If gun licensure assures the issuant is educated in gun safety, care, and passed a background check, I'm all for it. I know everyone here participating is responsible with their firearms. I just don't want some kid to go out and buy a gun at a gun show, with no training, and shoot himself, or someone else with carelessness or recklessness.

Someone also mentioned a good point that family loss or turmoil can cause someone to check into a health clinic, and I am all for checks and balances to make sure if they are stable upon leaving, that they can own a gun. As a Biopsychology major, I'd be more apt to file people that fall in the DSM-5 personality disorders, though I'd also lump schizophrenics there as well. This would eliminate people going through family trauma, bipolar, and anxiety cases.

Another good point raised, is who should regulate it? Should it be at the state or local level? Which branch? Please share your thoughts.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Yes Tim, increase in mass shootings have decreased since 1990. I must have missed the world you live in.

I live in the world of reality. I showed you Government funded research that said you are more likely to die from a lethal injection than a mass shooting. Or from a dog attack.

You may want to read this report from the Cato Institute. While mass shootings have increased since 1990, the chances a person dies in one are still infinitesimal. https://www.cato.org/blog/are-mass-shootings-becoming-more-frequent

Adding a preliminary estimate of 17 deaths from Parkland to the Mother Jones list brings the total number of deaths up to 816 from 98 mass shootings between 1982 and early 2018 – or just 23 deaths per year. That makes this sort of random mass shooting one of the rarest mortality risks imaginable. Falling or the flu are far more dangerous. Even when it comes to guns, 23 deaths a year pales next to the number of homicides by firearms in 2014 alone, which was 11,208 (69% of all homicides) and the number of suicides by firearms, which was 21,386 (50% of all suicides).

Every time one of these random mass shootings occurs, journalists and legislators invariably seize on the tragedy to lecture about the need for artfully unspecific changes in federal gun control laws. Of all the risks posed by guns or knives, however, random mass shootings are among the least likely.

In addition, it is critical to note that these "increases" in mass shootings coincide with the 2013 Congressional decision to label any shooting with 3 or more fatalities a mass shooting.

Point remains, this is still not an epidemic and to Sarge's point, restricting my gun usage or CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS will not fix the "problem" which is a criminal problem, a people problem, not a gun problem.

Though this isn't a discussion about mass shootings, it's a discussion about responsible gun ownership. Are you a responsible gun owner? I sure as hell am.

It's not a discussion about mass shootings?

Cope: I also know there is a problem in this country with mass shootings.There doesn't seem to be a good way to regulate, and currently there is no deterrent or responsibility to these horrific crimes.

Might I ask what world you live in? This isn't a discussion about mass shootings, but that was indeed your leading statement?

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

I'm trying to understand the resistance of licensing gun owners. I know it is our right to own guns. That right of owning guns should not be diminished, and that I agree on. I also drive a car and I'm licensed to do so. I don't feel any of my rights are infringed upon to drive a car. It is every American's choice to drive a car, or own a gun.

I think you're confusing and conflating the two.

It is a RIGHT to bear arms. It is not a RIGHT to drive a car. We are given the right to bear arms by the Constitution. The same document does NOT grant us the rights to drive a vehicle.

You try to compare the two, but they are non-comparable because one is a right, the other is not.

It is not every American's "choice" to own a gun either. It is their inalienable right to do so.

 

[Sarge]

Thanks for adding Sarge, and as a veteran, I was hoping you can add your input about the types of dishonorable discharge, because that is not my area of expertise.

I'm trying to understand the resistance of licensing gun owners. I know it is our right to own guns. That right of owning guns should not be diminished, and that I agree on. I also drive a car and I'm licensed to do so. I don't feel any of my rights are infringed upon to drive a car. It is every American's choice to drive a car, or own a gun. If gun licensure assures the issuant is educated in gun safety, care, and passed a background check, I'm all for it. I know everyone here participating is responsible with their firearms. I just don't want some kid to go out and buy a gun at a gun show, with no training, and shoot himself, or someone else with carelessness or recklessness.

Someone also mentioned a good point that family loss or turmoil can cause someone to check into a health clinic, and I am all for checks and balances to make sure if they are stable upon leaving, that they can own a gun. As a Biopsychology major, I'd be more apt to file people that fall in the DSM-5 personality disorders, though I'd also lump schizophrenics there as well. This would eliminate people going through family trauma, bipolar, and anxiety cases.

Another good point raised, is who should regulate it? Should it be at the state or local level? Which branch? Please share your thoughts.

I can't say much more about owning a gun vs. owning a car. Tim nailed that one. It is a right vs. a privilege. Not a good comparison.

The only type of dishonorable discharge barring gun ownership I would get behind is a discharge brought about by a gun crime or some sort of felony. Soldiers get dishonorably discharged for being overweight. Should we strip them of their rights for being fat?

Something else. Responsible gun owners, by and large, have been through the safety courses that you mention. We have been through hunters safety courses, we go to the range regularly, we teach our kids about gun safety and send them to the same courses. Hell, when I went to the concealed carry course, it was 90% about SAFETY. But hey burden me with more laws and regulations and bullshit and ignore the real problem.

And the reason I am vehemently opposed to gun licensing is this. Look at the recent mass shooting in Florida. Were the failures with responsible gun owners? No. The failures were with the FBI, local law enforcement and as we found out Monday, the ******* school itself.

We know about the failures of law enforcement. The school lied about that kid and the promise program. And for what? $53 million in federal funding for their district. So that is what those 17 kids' lives were worth. $53 million. And yet people are outraged at guns? Really?

And yet apparently, the only way to fix the failures of the FBI, local law enforcement and the school is to punish responsible gun owners. People have lost their minds. And time is coming to help them regain the faculties of common sense.

I am tired of being responsible in that I work my *** off, pay my bills, obey the law, raised my kids to be respectful of others and responsible too, say sir and ma'am. I hold doors for strangers, I keep to myself, help others when I can and do my best to be a good citizen every day, yet I am expected to pay the price for those that are irresponsible or just don't give a ****. As stated in a video posted here a while back, "We are the first ones punished and the last ones considered in this discussion." We have been giving in and giving in and the left keeps taking and taking. No. More. Those days are over. Myself and many freedom loving Americans have had enough.

 

[oneforthebus]

I'm trying to understand the resistance of licensing gun owners.

The resistance stems from the fact that the government having a record of who owns guns, where they live and how many they have makes it easier for the government to confiscate them. It's also a means for the government to deny people gun ownership, which in the Constitution is a right that shall not be infringed.

Someone also mentioned a good point that family loss or turmoil can cause someone to check into a health clinic, and I am all for checks and balances to make sure if they are stable upon leaving, that they can own a gun. As a Biopsychology major, I'd be more apt to file people that fall in the DSM-5 personality disorders, though I'd also lump schizophrenics there as well. This would eliminate people going through family trauma, bipolar, and anxiety cases.

And this is a very slippery slope because it leaves a lot of subjective interpretation to the government. It may seem far fetched but of course in Nazi Germany the government defined mental or physical defects in people to justify stripping them of all kinds of rights. When you think of how divided we've become and the hysteria over differences of opinion, it's not really all that hard to imagine a time when people who disagree with or resist the powers that be could be labelled "mentally ill".

That said, someone with a violent history or a history of making violent threats against people, I think has relinquished their right, whether they are mentally ill or not. But to simply say, anyone who's "not stable" or has this disorder or that, is too broad.