njlauren
Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: igor2003
quote:
ORIGINAL: MsMJAY
quote:
ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
quote:
ORIGINAL: MsMJAY
The only thing most gun control advocates want is the same requirements for guns that we have for cars.
And you really think that would make or would have made some sort of difference ?
Yes. Yes I do.
Handing out guns with little or no restrictions sure has not made a difference. Mandatory education, testing, background checks and registration for all guns will ensure that gun owners are, to some extent, responsible. Bear in mind that the vast majority of guns used in mass shootings were legally purchased. There should be some requirements to ensure that that owners know how to safely and intelligently operate and store the gun(s) they purchase.
You have put forth the idea that by requiring prospective gun owners to pass certain checks and restrictions, that it would ensure that gun owners would be more responsible. Here are at least some of the items you list as being of use toward that endeavor:
Mandatory education
Testing
Background checks (already in place)
Registration
And as examples you compare to automobiles in which people must:
Get vehicle registration with name and address
Car must pass inspection
Pass written test to prove they know the laws
Pass physical test
Now, assuming all that had been put in place even 5 or 10 years ago, which of the mass shooters that got their guns legally, during that time, do you think would have been thwarted by those laws and restrictions?
I'm guessing that pretty much all of them could have gotten the necessary education. I'm guessing that pretty much all of them could have passed any necessary testing. All of them could have registered their guns. And apparently all passed the background checks. (And if they lied or somehow cheated the background checks, then the guns were NOT purchased legally.)
When it comes to registration, it is my opinion that most, and probably all, mass shooters know before they begin their rampage that they will either be killed or caught. Having their name and address on file isn't going to make any difference to them.
Testing? I think their ability to shoot multiple people pretty well proves that they know how to, and are capable of using their weapon(s), and so could have passed any proficiency tests.
Education? Wouldn't that simply make them better at what they intend to do? That MAY help to decrease the number of accidental shootings, though I think that number would be minimal. (Using your car comparison, how many people that got their driver's license legally still speed, make illegal lane changes, make illegal turns, text and talk on the phone while driving, coast through stop signs, etc. etc. etc. Even with education people still ignore the laws and drive carelessly.)
As has been pointed out by others, the added restrictions would only affect the already law abiding gun owners, and do next to nothing to stop mass shootings.
Your points are valid for mass shooters to a certain level, but it also misses the point with gun crimes in general:
-The background checks we have now are watered down, the federal background check relies on states to do good background checks, and that is the problem. The Korean kid who shot up Virginia Tech bought his gun legally, passed a background check, in part because Virginia's system that feeds the federal ones is horrible. The kid had known psychiatric problems, yet he was not in the 'no fly' zone in their system, because basically Virginia's idea of gun ownership is 'unless you are totally off the skids, you have the right to buy guns". One of the things with registration systems is they usually also bring with them a system to make sure the person buying it is legit and so forth, states without registration also see background checks as 'an intrusion of privacy' , and that is a problem
-It also leaves out that people can legally buy guns and clips that allow a mass shooting to happen. If Adam Lanza didn't have a weapon with a 30 shot magazine that could fire a hundred rounds or more a minute in semi automatic mode, and have a magazine that could be changed rapidly, or the dickhead in Colorado who shot up the movie theater, they might have killed but it wouldn't be a mass shooting. I talked this over with someone else and I liked his idea (he was an NRA member I will add), he said banning weapons isn't the answer, but cutting down their capability is. May not work for the Joe Billy Bob's who think they are gong to fight the government, but if you make it difficult to change a magazine in a gun, restrict the size of the magazines and also put limits on how fast they can fire, it will cut down the scope of the killing and will give someone a chance to stop the shooter if they have to take time to reload.
-The other thing to keep in mind is that most gun deaths from criminal use of a weapon are not mass shootings as with Aurora or Adam Lanza, they are 1 or 2 victims. Most of those happen with handguns and the like, and that is where registration is important (few criminals use deer rifles or shotguns). As I noted in another post, 70% of the guns pulled off the streets of NYC, DC , etc, were purchased legally originally, it is legal gun sales that in effect are sourcing the black market. The problem is without registration, prevalent in many states, if someone decides to make some dough, and sell off their guns to the black market, or goes to a gun store, fills up their trunk, and then heads north to sell them, there is nothing anyone can do. Right now, without registration, if someone had a gun they bought, and later it was used for a crime, they can basically say "oh, don't know, must of been lost or stolen", and there is nothing that can happen to them. With gun registration laws, on the other hand, owners are required to keep inventory of their weapons and are required to notify the authorities if the weapon goes missing or is stolen and if it is sold, they have to report it. If they don't and that gun ends up used in a crime, they will be held accountable. When you know that, you don't treat a gun like a hammer or a screwdriver or something. More importantly, it will stop the clowns who buy guns with the idea of selling them into the black market, since it can be traced back to them. If someone says "Oh, my guns were stolen", if registered that might work once, but then if they try that again having sold weapons to the black market, they would be in hot water.
As far a criminals will always find a way to get guns, if this gets cut off, yes and no. If the legal sources of guns are cut off to the black market, prices would go through the roof and there will be less of them out there.
|
RE: Newtown - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread