Obnoxious, ignorant teens now demand curbs on guns

[Jazzhead]

So... the only logical course of action is to OPPOSE EVERYTHING that the leftists-communists agitate for. Because nothing for which they agitate will do much to solve the problem.

I've come to the conclusion that a certain number of innocent deaths at the hands of crazed lunatic killers (such as the one in Florida a few days' back) is ultimately "the price we must pay" -- IF we are to keep our full Second Amendment rights.

The only parameter we must decide upon is HOW MANY innocent deaths per year is a reasonable cost for our freedom to buy and own the weapons we want.

Since no one else in this forum other than me would be willing to offer up such a number, I will:
I'll reckon that "cost" to be 600-1,300 lives per year (for lack of any point of reference).

In a nation of 300+ million, that's a small enough "price to pay".

The flame suit is on.

Your argument fails because there is plenty we can do to prevent gun violence and solve crimes of gun violence by merely regulating the right but not denying it.   Registration and insurance of firearms doesn't deny the RKBA, any more than registration and insurance denies your right to travel by motor vehicle.

Your absolutist insistence that ANY regulation is a slippery slope to confiscation is insane,  given the hundreds of millions of firearms out there and the thousands of preventable deaths.   OF COURSE efficacious regulation that saves lives is worth the small price to the legal gunowner.  Stop being selfish - the community is suffering, and a solution must be found.     

[goatprairie]

Your argument fails because there is plenty we can do to prevent gun violence and solve crimes of gun violence by merely regulating the right but not denying it.   Registration and insurance of firearms doesn't deny the RKBA, any more than registration and insurance denies your right to travel by motor vehicle.

Your absolutist insistence that ANY regulation is a slippery slope to confiscation is insane,  given the hundreds of millions of firearms out there and the thousands of preventable deaths.   OF COURSE efficacious regulation that saves lives is worth the small price to the legal gunowner.  Stop being selfish - the community is suffering, and a solution must be found.   

"and a solution must be found."

Okay, the country institutes all the feel good proposals.  The new measures do little or nothing to stop the killings. Then what?
I'm not saying there's a "reasonable" amount of deaths we should allow, but the idea that a "solution" can be readily found is just as overly optimistic. Many times there are no "solutions"....just trade offs or slight abatement of the problem. Sometimes the solutions are worse than what was before.
We already know the FBI fell down on the job. So have other law enforcement or gov. agencies. Barring total banning and confiscation of firearms, these killings will continue.
We can do more things to identify and keep guns away from mental cases or potential killers, but that will not stop them entirely.
So my question to you is how far do you want to go if the what looks like brand new (feel good) measures are taken and the shootings are not abated? 

[Jazzhead]

"and a solution must be found."

Okay, the country institutes all the feel good proposals.  The new measures do little or nothing to stop the killings. Then what?
I'm not saying there's a "reasonable" amount of deaths we should allow, but the idea that a "solution" can be readily found is just as overly optimistic. Many times there are no "solutions"....just trade offs or slight abatement of the problem. Sometimes the solutions are worse than what was before.
We already know the FBI fell down on the job. So have other law enforcement or gov. agencies. Barring total banning and confiscation of firearms, these killings will continue.
We can do more things to identify and keep guns away from mental cases or potential killers, but that will not stop them entirely.
So my question to you is how far do you want to go if the what looks like brand new (feel good) measures are taken and the shootings are not abated?

I don't support "feel good" measures.   I support efficacious regulation,  that will help deter gun violence (e.g., gun violence restraining orders),  permit law enforcement to track and trace stolen guns, and provide for a fund for compensating the victims of gun violence.   Any such laws should be carefully drawn to limit the intrusion on lawful gunowners. 

[skeeter]

Your argument fails because there is plenty we can do to prevent gun violence and solve crimes of gun violence by merely regulating the right but not denying it.   Registration and insurance of firearms doesn't deny the RKBA, any more than registration and insurance denies your right to travel by motor vehicle.

Maybe when you have a chance you can explain how registering and insuring firearms will stop mass shootings by lunatics, or serve any other useful purpose than provide information to the government on where to find lawfully owned firearms.

[goatprairie]

I don't support "feel good" measures.   I support efficacious regulation,  that will help deter gun violence (e.g., gun violence restraining orders),  permit law enforcement to track and trace stolen guns, and provide for a fund for compensating the victims of gun violence.   Any such laws should be carefully drawn to limit the intrusion on lawful gunowners.

I'm not necessarily against some of your proposals. What I'm trying to say is that, barring total confiscation of all firearms, these killings will continue no matter what good or bad proposals are passed.
There's just no way to stop most of these killings.  Like I said, try and pass reasonable, well thought out bills with the knowledge that they'll most likely do little to stop crazed killers.
The only good measures to stop future killings is to identify and stop these killers before they can kill. And arming certified people in previously gun free zones i.e schools would help as well.

[Right_in_Virginia]

...   I support efficacious regulation,  that will help deter gun violence (e.g., gun violence restraining orders),  permit law enforcement to track and trace stolen guns, and provide for a fund for compensating the victims of gun violence.   Any such laws should be carefully drawn to limit the intrusion on lawful gunowners. 

How would tracking a stolen gun or a fund for compensating victims of gun violence have prevented the carnage in Florida @Jazzhead

How does "limiting the intrusion on lawful gun owners" not constitute an infringement on a right guaranteed by the Constitution not to be infringed?

[Restored]

Jazzhand

Would you support insurance for guns if the gun owner didn't have to pay for it? IOW the government paid for it.
And why just victims of gun violence? Why not all victims of violence?

[Oceander]

How would tracking a stolen gun or a fund for compensating victims of gun violence have prevented the carnage in Florida @Jazzhead

How does "limiting the intrusion on lawful gun owners" not constitute an infringement on a right guaranteed by the Constitution not to be infringed?

[Oceander]

Jazzhand

Would you support insurance for guns if the gun owner didn't have to pay for it? IOW the government paid for it.

Why shouldn’t the owner pay for it?  Does the government pay for your car insurance?

[Restored]

Why shouldn’t the owner pay for it?  Does the government pay for your car insurance?

I want to know if the purpose of the insurance is to deter gun ownership. That not the intention of auto insurance.

[LMAO]

How would tracking a stolen gun or a fund for compensating victims of gun violence have prevented the carnage in Florida @Jazzhead

How does "limiting the intrusion on lawful gun owners" not constitute an infringement on a right guaranteed by the Constitution not to be infringed?

I’m not opposed to things like a background check. There already is one in place and I don’t consider that an infringement. I’m not also one who believes that any laws passed means a  government agent will be knocking on my door tomorrow to take me to a re education camp although a little vigilance on my part wouldn’t hurt. I also like to steer clear of fiery rhetoric about shooting government agents

We are caught in the emotion of the moment and as a result, we see demands for lawmakers to “do something” about guns. But if the past is any guide, it seems we pass laws to deal with guns and when those laws don’t work we need more and when those fail to solve the problem, well, you get the idea. There’s no denying that in areas of this country that have some of the strictest gun laws also have some of the highest homocide rates.

The problem with licensing guns is when you license something, it becomes more of a privilege. And requiring gun owners to have insurance may put gun ownership out of reach of lower income, yet law abiding citizens. We license and insure cars and automobile deaths far surpass death by guns

It seems whether we pass laws seek “solutions” be it guns or anything we run into the law of unintended consequences

[Right_in_Virginia]

Well, why don't you take a crack at an actual answer?

[Right_in_Virginia]

Gun owners would do well to take the focus off the 2nd Amendment and put it on school safety. 

We make changes in school safety protocols ... and you'll be polishing your rifle uninterrupted for the rest of your life.

[Oceander]

I want to know if the purpose of the insurance is to deter gun ownership. That not the intention of auto insurance.

One of the purposes of requiring car insurance is deterring car ownership by financially irresponsible or destitute people. 

Are you saying government should be paying for our auto insurance?

[LMAO]

Here's what I asked  .. How would tracking a stolen gun or a fund for compensating victims of gun violence have prevented the carnage in Florida    

Any ideas on this?

It wouldn’t

[Oceander]

Gun owners would do well to take the focus off the 2nd Amendment and put it on school safety. 

We make changes in school safety protocols ... and you'll be polishing your rifle uninterrupted for the rest of your life.

That would be a good step.  However, you need to deal with the fact that to-date many of the procedures that would have deterred this sort of thing are routinely not followed through on.  If these alternatives cannot be relied upon, then there is only one rational response left. 

[Right_in_Virginia]

It wouldn’t

Thank you.

[LMAO]

Laura wrote:
"I think this is the point where we agree: how do we prevent the mad from acquiring weapons?"

Answer:
You don't. At least not all the time.
Some are going to get them anyway.
And some are going to go off the cliff and use them against innocents.

We can take numerous reasonable and rational steps to identify and confine some of these shooters, and we may get a good number of them preemptively. But nevertheless, SOME are going to slip through the cracks or otherwise evade detection.

For that reason, these kind of killings are going to continue regardless of what attempts at "gun control" are imposed upon us.
So... the only logical course of action is to OPPOSE EVERYTHING that the leftists-communists agitate for. Because nothing for which they agitate will do much to solve the problem.

I've come to the conclusion that a certain number of innocent deaths at the hands of crazed lunatic killers (such as the one in Florida a few days' back) is ultimately "the price we must pay" -- IF we are to keep our full Second Amendment rights.

The only parameter we must decide upon is HOW MANY innocent deaths per year is a reasonable cost for our freedom to buy and own the weapons we want.

Since no one else in this forum other than me would be willing to offer up such a number, I will:
I'll reckon that "cost" to be 600-1,300 lives per year (for lack of any point of reference).

In a nation of 300+ million, that's a small enough "price to pay".

The flame suit is on.

What if a loved one of yours was the victim

[Oceander]

Well, why don't you take a crack at an actual answer?

In this particular situation, requiring insurance and registration might have deterred him because it might have prevented him from purchasing in the first place.  No purchase, no gun, no dead kids. 

[Restored]

We insure cars because they get in accidents. Those accidents require money for repairs or medical compensation and you can't count on the steerage to have that cash when it comes down to paying according to the politicians. So we must have car insurance.

Gun accidents are very rare. If a gun kills someone, that is almost exclusively a purposeful act. IIRC half the shootings in the US go unsolved or involve a gun not legally owned by the shooter. or a suicide. IOW no pockets to pick and no insurance. The chance of one of my guns hurting someone is almost 0%, if I had guns. I should be paying about $1 a year for insurance under those rules. So what is the point? The only point I can find is that we want to make it more difficult for poor people in high crime areas to legally obtain a gun or to put more poor young black men in prison for having a gun without insurance.

[jmyrlefuller]

One of the purposes of requiring car insurance is deterring car ownership by financially irresponsible or destitute people. 

And you have no problem with that.

Do you realize the admission you've just made? Insurance is a racket to screw the poor and deny them access to transportation.

[skeeter]

In this particular situation, requiring insurance and registration might have deterred him because it might have prevented him from purchasing in the first place.  No purchase, no gun, no dead kids.

Because only responsible people buy insurance, only responsible people will own guns?

 

[Restored]

In this particular situation, requiring insurance and registration might have deterred him because it might have prevented him from purchasing in the first place.  No purchase, no gun, no dead kids.

Because there are no people driving around without insurance? If his plan was to go down in a blaze of glory, the cost of insurance would be irrelevant to him.

[Cyber Liberty]

That would be a good step.  However, you need to deal with the fact that to-date many of the procedures that would have deterred this sort of thing are routinely not followed through on.  If these alternatives cannot be relied upon, then there is only one rational response left.

So you admit the problem is we are not enforcing the laws on the books, and you think the "one rational response" is to write more laws?

Didn't Einstein have a quote about that?

[Right_in_Virginia]

That would be a good step.  However, you need to deal with the fact that to-date many of the procedures that would have deterred this sort of thing are routinely not followed through on.  If these alternatives cannot be relied upon, then there is only one rational response left.

Yup.  And if a meteor hits the planet tonight ... everything we did today will be for naught, but we're still going to work and live our lives.

Preventive school safety protocols have not been established --- Not in the schools, not in the FBI, not in local law enforcement and not in the mental health arena.

Why not define the protocols and put them in place before waving the white flag?