I believe it is easier to own and operate a gun legally in this country than a car. There is no national registration database of guns in the country - where there is one for cars (DMV). There are no operational tests to be allowed to own a gun and there is no periodic renewal of "license" to own one (where these is for a car). I spent a lot of time in Europe (Mostly the UK) and I agree that their driving standards are much higher than ours - and therefore drivers there are generally speaking better than US drivers - but at least there is some kind of certification process and registry of cars in the country.
That's half-true. The ATF keeps a record of every gun sold in this country. And the DMV is not a "national registry", it is just a state registry. This equals "training". So better training? You want someone....a mass killer, in this case.....better trained with a gun? .............
Ok! Tell you what. Let us offer an Amendment where you need to pass an IQ test, (negotiate the number) and a sanity test, to own a gun, and vote. I am willing to see if that can make it through the amendment process.
When did I blame guns? I blamed irresponsible gun ownership and access to guns. I would also assure you that I have shot guns extensively (and usually enjoyed it) - I probably shot everything from bb-guns to 105mm tanks (yep, that dates me I guess as modern tanks are mostly 120-125mm I believe) at some point in my life. I honestly believe that this country does not regulate fire-arms enough - and the study mentioned above seems to support this belief.
There is no need for an amendment. The 2nd amendment already includes the words "well regulated". I argue that our current regulations are not "well".
Your already know, the court has rule against you. Amendment or nothing. Qualifications for voting and gun ownership the same.
No, I want normal people to be trained to properly store their guns, ensure that it is harder to steal (which will make it harder to get for the nutjobs) and keep it away from their kids. If there are less guns stolen and available for everyone with money in his pockets - it is likely that there will be harder for some you do not want to have guns to gain access to one. It is likely that if people clean and store their guns properly - there are less un-intentional deaths from guns.
So you ARE blaming guns, essentially. You cannot regulate irresponsible gun ownership; you can only punish it when it happens. And firearms are legal in this country (whether anyone agrees with that or not....they are legal, so it's pointless to argue that point). I disagree, and I don't need studies of other countries, who don't have the population numbers or firearms that we do, to tell me that. I think that, with the population numbers that we have, as well as the number of firearms and those whom own them legally, we're doing pretty damned good. I do agree with this to a point. What I disagree with is the government getting into my private property and violating my privacy to enforce it, instead of fixing the inner cities, improving education, and fixing the mental health system. Which are all things that will cut down firearm deaths significantly.
I generally bring this up almost every time this happens when someone says it's easy to get a gun... The time is 2012, and I am 3 months from deploying to AFG. I have orders in hand stating that I will be recalled for purposes of mobilization to AFG, including the unit I was going to. I had moved my family back to CA so Mrs. FromWA and the kids could be around her family while I was gone. My orders stated that I would be deploying with a M9 (Beretta 92FS) and an M4 carbine. Not wanting to go to a war zone with only a few weeks' worth of Army marksmanship training (no offense, soldiers, but when you train to the lowest-common-denominator of 500k troops, it's not going to help me much), I attempt to go to the local firearms store and purchase a weapon. Knowing that it's CA, I go over-the-top on documentation. I have a valid WA Driver's License, my passport, my orders, my military ID and my M9 and M4 qualifications from the Reserves, as well as utility bills and lease showing address in CA. Sure enough, the dealer has a Beretta 92FS just sitting there in the cabinet, as if it was waiting for me. I say that the price is right and am willing to buy. He asks for my CA DL, which I obviously don't have (and can't get, as WA is my military home of record and the place where I vote, etc). I show him my valid WA license and military ID, and orders with my CA address on them and the lease. He says that he can't sell me one. When I ask why not, he says that I don't have sufficient proof of citizenship or residency. (If he would've said "we only sell to CA DL's", I would've kind of understood, but still not been happy, but he didn't). When I disagreed and stated that not only did I have proof of residency AND citizenship, and showed him my orders and ID again, he threatened to call the police. I did not get to purchase a firearm in CA, and I went to AFG with minimal training in the M9. Therefore I refute that it is "easy" for a law-abiding citizen to purchase a weapon.
Not in city limits, it's not. You cannot operate a gun legally within city limits without a license, or in a well regulated establishment. You can take your gun out to the wilderness and operate it without a license, but you can do that with a lot of things. Example: You cannot drive a dirtbike on city streets unless you get it registered and you take a class to get your riding endorsement, but you can take a dirt bike out to the sand dunes or to the wilderness and operate it without insurance, without a license, or without registering it. This also applies to quads or dune buggies. They're recreational vehicles. They cannot be used on city streets. Similarly, you cannot operate a gun within city limits unless you jump through the legal hoops.
I was going to buy a cheap Mossberg shotgun at Big5 years ago but hadn't changed my address on my driver's license to the house I'd just bought. Couldn't buy it. In Nevada no less.
I had to wait until I changed the address on my license when I moved across town before I could buy a Ruger GP100 .357 Magnum. My gun shop, who knew me quite well, would not sell me a firearm until I changed it.
Of course I am not blaming guns. I assure you that if all the guns were in a big glass cube somewhere with no human access - there would be no firearms death. I blame the interaction of people and guns and how it is maybe not regulated properly for these days. As for deterrent by punishment of things like failing to register your guns, report them stolen etc.. makes sense as part of regulation. The studies are normalized to size, we are certainly not doing dammed good. I suggest pursuing the information mentioned above. This point is absolutely wrong. Fair enough. Of course fixing the mental health system gets into health care which is whole new can of worms.
A lot of people own guns for a "what if" scenario. What if someone broke into my house? What if someone tried to hurt me? They might not ever use the gun. They might not ever take it out of the box or take it out of the closet. It just sits there, and if something happened they would need to discharge it within city limits. But for the most part, gun ownership simply means possessing a gun somewhere in their house. They're not actively taking it out into public. They're not actively shooting it. Similarly, someone might own a dirt bike or a quad and it just sits in the garage collecting dust. They don't have it insured or registered. They don't have a motorcycle endorsement to drive it on the streets, but if something happened, like a natural disaster, you can bet your ass they would pull it out so they could get around. And that's what gun ownership is for a lot of people. It's just something they own that's collecting dust, but it's there if they need it.
CA has been tough for a long time now. Geez, I think it was over 30 years ago now, I was heading out on a business trip to several customers on the East coast and the UK. My wife and I went to a big gun store in Hayward, to get her the Beretta she owns. It was in stock and ready to go but the checks and paperwork did not allow it come home with her. I went on the trip and was back home before it cleared. I call that an infringement. I would call it criminal not to sell to a man shipping out, no matter which state he is from.
With respect, I highly, highly doubt that. I've seen these "studies" before numerous times, and not one was ever "normalized to size". They are usually performed with biased without taking into consideration infrastructure, economy, healthcare, population numbers, and even the differences in what constitutes a crime and how they are recorded differently between the two countries. There are many things, for example, that are recorded as violent offenses in Europe that are not recorded as such here, and are thus graded differently. And in regards to population numbers, it would be like saying "well, the UK has less traffic fatalities than we do, so they must be safer". Without taking into consideration that there are FAR less vehicles and people in the UK. And in fact you would have to add up most of modern Europe together as one country to even get close to the 330 million total people we have in this country. BTW: in response to your above posts, I meant to tell you that I didn't say that you were "against guns". I was simply arguing some points with you. I apologize if there was a misunderstanding there. Right now, that's pretty much me. I have 7 locked away that are just collecting dust. I haven't even been to the range in probably 5 years. With how violent our society has become lately, however, I've considered loading up my Glock 22 and securing it somewhere close by, so I can grab it if I need to. But it's only a thought right now.
I was speaking with a guy over on GlockTalk a couple months back who lives near Sacramento. He went to his local sheriff's office to get a CWP around January, and the sheriff told him "okay, I'll set up an appointment for you in May of 2019, and we'll discuss it."
Quoting directly from the study: Methods We examined 2010 mortality data obtained from the World Health Organization for populous, high-income countries (n = 23). Death rates per 100,000 population were calculated for each country and for the aggregation of all non-US countries overall and by age and sex. Tests of significance were performed using Poisson and negative binomial regressions. I believe that this is exactly the point of the study - showing the easy access to guns in this country leads to a much higher death by firearms. We are not talking 3% higher here - we are talking 2500% higher for homicide for example. This, to me, is an unreasonable number and a problem. No problems. I have no issue with any reasonable argument. In this case I would argue that suggested enhanced regulation will be a small bother for you, as a reasonable, responsible and informed gun owner. I understand that it is a pain (I do not like red tape either) - but I still think that it is good for the greater good if it deters or catches some of the less responsible owners and thus makes it harder for the nut jobs to get their hands on them.
