I own two cars that are not registered. I can modify them any way I see fit and drive them however I want on private property. Further, I can transport them on my vehicle on any public roadway in a modified state and use them on public land that isn't a roadway without registering them. They have no insurance and I don't need a DL to do any of this. I didn't take any background check to buy them.

And you could drive those into a crowd of people.

You potential monster

touche

I will go cut them in half on CNN

I'd add a /s, as it's sometimes easy to misinterpret that stuff...

Drivers of cars are not tested yearly.

There are people that drive with out insurance and with out a driver license. Just like there are people with legal license and drive like crap an should not be driving.

There are people that drive with out insurance and with out a driver license.

This is exactly why OP's proposed laws would not work...criminals won't comply with laws that get in their way. If they can't buy a gun then they will break into a gun owner's home when they are away and steal the gun they want...or they will import one illegally...or they will manufacture one.

You understand that is the same as saying "there's no point in outlawing murder, criminals are just going to do it anyways"

No, its the same as saying once you have one law forbidding murder, it is redundant and futile to keep making more laws in hopes that a criminal who ignores laws will decide to obey. You don't need a separate law prohibiting murder by gun, by knife, by stick, by poisoned bananas, by collision from red car, ad infinity....

I'm not aware that murder is punished that way. Murder is generally "in the first degree, second, third, manslaughter, and so on" so....

Plus that isn't what you said, you said "criminals are not going to comply with laws that get in their way".
I don't know anywhere in the world that works the way you describe.

do you think people would overall driver better or worse if there was no standards enforced at all? fringe cases shouldnt dictate the policy

That's the point! Fringe cases should not dictate policy. Just like when shootings happen, you should not take away guns from everyone because of crazy people.

its becoming too common. we've seen that any crazy person can, on a whim, affect the lives of too many people. its waaay too easy to kill a gang of people

its waaay too easy to kill a gang of people

Just curious....What is, in your opinion, the appropriate amount of difficulty that should be required to "kill a gang of people"? How hard should the government work (in terms of tax dollars spent developing legislation and enforcing laws and incarcerating violaters)...to eliminate your free will? Is it the government's job to make every possibility of wrongdoing physically impossible? Should government place speed control devices on ever car to limit their max speed to 70 mph? Should government require the same weaponless standards throughout all of America as are currently required on-board aircraft? Should there be a TSA inspector assigned at the front door of every home in America? Should the government require homeowners to come in and register each rock on their land that is of sufficient size to cause injury? Should the government outlaw the carrying of unregistered rocks? If a rock is dropped on a car from a bridge overpass and kills a family of 6, should it be considered an "assault rock"?

Where exactly do you see this government protection of people against their own choices ending?

cap magazine capacity at 10 or 6 would be a pretty solid step in the right direction, while not hampering hunting or home defense

Its a slippery slope. Once you accept the premise that government is the one who proactively decides what degree of defense is appropriate then you have placed your survival in the hands of the government...and that is beyond the authority of any government. Survival is an individual right that exceeds the authority of the state. The state's opinions or laws to the contrary are simply irrelevant.

To save you the time typing out the obvious rejoinder, I'll go ahead and reply...Doesn't this mean that the government can't disallow nukes for home defense? Answer: Only if your home consists of so much land that both the explosion and subsequent radiation and fallout would not exceed the boundaries of your property and thereby impact the rights of your neighbors. If there existed a nuke small enough to be limited to the typical 1 acre house lot, then I'd have no problem with citizens owning nukes...but admittedly this is an absurdly unlikely possibility. So, for all practical purposes a weapon that is impossible to use for legal defense without incurring charges for excessive use of force...would, in my view, not be within the realm of "arms" under the 2nd Amendment.

i dont think its that slippery. make an argument for why 30 rounds is useful for hunting or home defense? if you are firing 30 rounds in your own home I think your neighbors and family might wish youd just called the cops

its a conversation worth having. I do think its the role of the govt to regulate weaponry. whos going to do it? the free market?

if you are firing 30 rounds in your own home I think your neighbors and family might wish youd just called the cops

You bring up an excellent point for the "gun control" side...will those rounds actually remain inside your own house...or will they go through your walls down the block and kill your neighbor's sleeping child in their bed? Personally, I'd limit those type of weapons to pre-fragmented rounds similar to Glaser Safety Slugs that can't penetrate walls....not simply for protection of neighbors, but also your own family. How bad would life suck if you try to shot a burglar in the living room and the bullet goes through the wall and kills a member of your own family? The secondary advantage of pre-fragmented ammo is that if you hit the burglar...its a sure bet he won't be testifying in court later ;)

As for the neighbors wishing you had called the cops...that isn't any protection. First, the cops are not able to respond instantaneously and the criminal is already there. Second, the police are not legally obligated to respond at all...and you can't sue them for prioritizing something else over your call.

you should not JUSTIFY VIOLENT OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT because of crazy people.

FTFY

Nope

Car owners are NOT tested yearly. Why would one have to insure a firearm?

It’s their idea to make it so people can’t afford guns.

Why are they focused on guns and not the fucking FBI and Sheriff's who are paid to protect us? They failed us yet we are blaming guns?

Be cause what you see is not real the real control is behind the scenes and has been pushing gun control forever. Think about it Trump won he is in there why is there such a gun control slant with a president that is for the NBA and gun rights? Well the NWO folks that really run things want us helpless and weak.

I understand it but why do people on here and who get interviewed not question the shit. Everybody seems to suck up the bullshit. Like complete idiots not capable of critical thinking.

They only show you the ones that have no clue and parrot the answer. As they are the MSN after all. Hopefully there are many more than the empty vessels they show that get it.

I don't know who this ambiguous NWO is...but just 5 minutes of watching television news (any channel) proves conclusively that (((someone))) wants Americans disarmed.

you are conflating "gun owners" and "guns".

as a car owner, i am not "tested yearly" ;)

all guns registered

what could go wrong?

Utterly clueless why that building is still standing...its like some strange Bermuda triangle mystery.

Uh, excuse me... the correct term is firearms thank you very much.

Knee jerk reaction to one person's psychosis. More people are killed by cars, knives, etc than guns every year. Forget about kids in Florida, how many people are killed every year in the cities/places that have the strictest gun laws? Laws only affect the law abiding citizens. Outlaws/criminals have their own special name because they do not follow rules. There is zero legislation or laws that will change that.

No. Guns aren't like cars, and shouldn't be treated like cars. Unless you meant Islam's Ramming Trucks of Peace. People still die. If someone in the crowd was armed their death trucks would stop dead in theie tracks.

Seriously the gun grab campaign will lose every time. Their whole argument is emotion/feeling based going up against logic and reason. Such a waste of time. https://i.imgur.com/uRISgCo.jpg

How do any of these things keep someone from plowing down a group of people with a car and why do you think they would prevent someone from committing a mass shooting if applied to guns?

the harder it is the less likely it is to happen. im in favor of adding some hoops to jump through, even if not these specific hoops. I also think drivers licenses should be a little harder to get

I understand the initial impulse to reject your suggestion, but I think you're onto something.

I think that as people continue to live longer and more generally comfortable in their lives that the children are maturing more slowly. Their lives don't require that they mature further and thus they don't. In most cases, a bird won't learn to fly until it's nudge out of the nest.

I look at my youngest son, who's 8, and he has basically had both of his parents within arm's reach most of his life. We're far from helicopter parents, but we keep an eye on him, as I think parents should. In contrast, at his age I was already a latch-key kid of a single mother and was mostly unsupervised. From shooting a .22 into the unfinished wall in my basement to stealing my mom's car and driving it around when I was 13, I have a decent list of darwin level accomplishments in my name.

I moved out at 16, put myself through all 2-years of my college and 20+ years later wish I could go to college but can't afford it because I make too much money. The return on investment wouldn't be worthwhile so it would be something I would do when I didn't care about money.

My kids are too comfortable. They've never gone to bed hungry, been abused, been locked out of their house for a week by their mentally unstable mother, or frankly been much worse then mildly uncomfortable on a flight to Europe.

It's a valid case to say that kid's aren't what they used to be. We raise them soft and thus they are. The results of decades of failing families are plainly apparent. As a parent of 3 "gen-z" kids, I will affirm first hand that they are very rational and even conservative in the way they approach things because it's hard for them to wrap their minds around why, people who have traditionally been role models, are collectively losing their minds over nothing.

I have a number of firearms in my house, but none of my kids have known until this year (oldest is 14). I'm not taking them to the range or in any hurry to train them beyond the required safety knowledge of how to interact with any firearm (don't).

That's a long way to say the fact is that kids seem to be maturing later and perhaps there should be an adjustment to that. You need to be 21 to buy a handgun or alcohol. You need to be 18 to drive in some places now. Let's go ahead and move the line. You need to be 21 to join the full military (schooling required in advance), and buy firearms besides a shotgun. Would that make the country a safer place?

Why would you make drivers licenses harder to get? What good is that supposed to do anyone?

have you been on the road with other people?

i think statisitcally, if youre going to die prematurely of something other than illness, its very likely to happen on the road. People should be good at driving and take it seriously

But this has nothing to do with the story at hand. We are discussing measures to prevent mass murder.

then we shouldnt jump on the drivers license tangent

Killing the entire population of Earth with nukes is a "method"...and its 100% certain to bring the mass murder rate to a standstill...but it also violates peoples rights. Does it also deserve discussion?

In modern day Germany, obtaining a driver's license requires a year of school. What it does is make kids FAR less likely to do anything that would cause them to lose their license.

So...requiring a license (that can be taken away) is a system of control that indirectly can be used to take someone's gun rights away.

One does not require a free speaking "license"...or a free choice of religion "license" because these things are rights. Likewise for guns.

It's not a negotiation. The people they are pointed at don't get to dictate terms.

The people they are pointed at don't get to dictate terms.

64% of gun deaths are suicide.

So... technically (as a matter of "fact") most people they are pointed at absolutely DO get to dictate terms.

/i understand what you are trying to say, but... best to get your facts straight. :)

Let's play a game.

What happens to the suicide rate if handguns were banned?

Let's play a game.

ok :) i like games... good idea.

What happens to the suicide rate if handguns were banned?

OK. I'll answer the question... it's a game.

"If" handguns were banned (that's a pretty unrealistic "if", given the 2nd Amendment -- i.e., completely un-Constitutional). I digress...

...to answer your question: the suicide rate would fall if handguns were banned. (i think we probably agree on that)

OK my turn:

By how much would the suicide rate fall, if (totally unconstitutional) "handguns were banned" ?

And perhaps you might have some time to back up your opinion with... some other national statistics that might be available... from other countries that "banned handguns" ... what happened to (specifically) "suicide rates" in those countries?? Sincerely - do we know... ?

Also.. and maybe more to the point... don't you think eliminating handguns (totally unconstitutional) might simply be like trying to plug-a-dam ? i.e., there are many other ways to commit suicide -- i meanly, maybe literally "100's" of ways to commit suicide.

It's like asking... "What do you think would happen to the suicide rate of we banned knives?"

I mean... yea... "suicide rates" would probably fall off a bit... maybe by a couple of percentage points... i.e., "saves" ~50 lives per year out of 340 Million in the US. But... banning knives (or guns) won't stop people from committing suicide -- certainly not in the age of "pharmaceuticals" ;)

Bottom Line: Your fighting for crumbs.

If you want to see suicide rate fall:

• Decriminalize Cannabis (totally NOT unconstitutional)

• Introduce Universal Basic Income (totally NOT unconstitutional)

Done. That would drop suicide rates by AT LEAST 10%

...not to mention saving lives of those who otherwise die of - unintentional - overdosing from their expensive pharmaceuticals:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/16/legal-marijuana-is-saving-lives-in-colorado-study-finds/

Even if we give "banning handguns" (totally unconstitutional) the benefit of the doubt... and assume that banning handguns (totally unconstitutional) would drop suicide rates by 10% (i.e., as much as decriminalizing cannabis has proven to do)... i really hope you fight for Cannabis Decriminalization just as diligently as you fight for "banning handguns" (totally unconstitutional), because unlike Cannabis Decriminalization ("happening now!"), "banning handguns" will absolutely never happen -- you are wasting your energy for very little gain, in my humble opinion.

I digress. Please answer my question:

• By how much would the suicide rate fall "if handguns were banned" ?

• PS. here a good source of information on that topic: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-28/fact-check-gun-homicides-and-suicides-john-howard-port-arthur/7254880

You turn :)

You took your turn and then my turn, however, I do appreciate you typing all of that out. It saved me from doing it.

...to answer your question: the suicide rate would fall if handguns were banned. (i think we probably agree on that)

Not necessarily. And you make your(my) counterpoint here:

I mean... yea... "suicide rates" would probably fall off a bit... maybe by a couple of percentage points... i.e., "saves" ~50 lives per year out of 340 Million in the US. But... banning knives (or guns) won't stop people from committing suicide -- certainly not in the age of "pharmaceuticals" ;)

Bottom Line: Your fighting for crumbs.

And then you come to some reasonable conclusions:

Decriminalize Cannabis (totally NOT unconstitutional) Introduce Universal Basic Income (totally NOT unconstitutional)

I like the way your thinking, but I would argue that for either of those to work you need to enforce laws against other elements that would take advantage. Particularly those in the country to support the vast and well organized crime syndicate that operates coast to coast and those here illegally. Even in places where cannabis is legal it's still widely distributed off the grid, along with all of the other drugs and that comes with problems.

And universal income isn't going to be successful with an open borders policy. There are millions of people in this country that desperately need help today and cannot find it and importing more needy, and often times opportunistic, mouths to feed isn't going to help anyone. There are a finite amount of resources (even if it is artificial) and decisions must be made.

Well played player.

woooot

the harder it is the less likely it is to happen. im in favor of adding some hoops to jump through, even if not these specific hoops. I also think drivers licenses should be a little harder to get

You understand that is the same as saying "there's no point in outlawing murder, criminals are just going to do it anyways"

cap magazine capacity at 10 or 6 would be a pretty solid step in the right direction, while not hampering hunting or home defense