What is sensible gun control, anyway?

[Lithrael]

I'm curious, where do guns rights advocates come down on responsible ownership? Of course, everyone wants owners to be responsible, but is there a line, and if so, where is it? I'm not interested in what IS on the books at the moment, more in what you feel the law should be, ideally.

Where would the ideal fall, between no restrictions at all no matter what you have or have not done, and levels of restriction the USA would simply not be able to stomach at this time, such as licencing/permits for guns for hunting, target shooting etc but no legal place for guns as home defense and extremely restricted ownership of handguns, with everything needing to be locked up in separate locations, such as you have in some other countries?

If YOU got to set it up how would you do it? What do you feel is sensible? Do you feel if done right it would be a good way to keep guns in the hands of responsible owners and out of the hands of careless people? Do you feel guns should be kept out of the hands of careless people? Felons? Anyone?

Would love to see some opinions on this stuff without the usual over-polarizing.

[Ziggurat]

What is sensible gun control?

Use a good grip, use your second hand to steady your arm, keep your feet firmly planted, make sure you identify and line up on your target, and keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot.

[DDWW]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

What is sensible gun control?

Use a good grip, use your second hand to steady your arm, keep your feet firmly planted, make sure you identify and line up on your target, and keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot.

And may I add; Front sight, Front sight, Front sight.

(although I do like my Crimson Trace lasers)




DDWW

[Autolite]

I think the most sensible approach to effective 'gun' control is to start by redefining issue to reflect the true nature of the problem.

Let's try calling it "Crime Control".

Acknowledge the elephant in the room and go from there...

[Skeptic Ginger]

New Town to Newtown: How ’96 Massacre Spurred Gun Laws in Australia — and No Mass Shootings Since

Quote:

The death toll eventually rose to 35 in what came to be known as the Port Arthur massacre. The person who carried out the mass killing was Martin Bryant, ironically from a place called New Town.

Well, just 12 days after the grisly attack and the public outcry it launched, Australia’s government responded by announcing a bipartisan deal to enact gun control measures. The pact included agreements with state and local governments. Since the laws were passed—for more than 15 years—there has not been a mass shooting in Australia.

Not saying the US doesn't have additional hurdles because we have so many more guns in circulation, but lest you think Oz is more like Canada or the UK when it comes to the gun ownership culture:

Quote:

Well, it was in—Australia at the time was, as you said, a country, and it still is a country, where hunting is an important activity. There is a—Australia wins Olympic medals in shooting. You know, in Australia there’s a high premium placed on rugged masculinity, and it’s a frontier country. And so, it has some similarities with the U.S.

And also, another similarity was that we had had, in the previous couple of decades, occasionally mass shootings. About once a year, we had a mass shooting. And on each occasion, there was a lot of talk about the gun laws and politicians, similar to here, actually, avoiding the issue, saying, "Well, we need to look at family values and mental health and everything else," and basically being too frightened to do anything about the gun laws, because the gun lobby always threatened to punish electorally any party that did actually strengthen the laws.

What happened in '96 was so shocking, and also the level of anger and dissatisfaction and frustration in the public was so high by then, that really that was the tipping point for Australia.

[casebro]

And how has the violent crime rate over all been doing in Oz since?

[Lithrael]

Originally Posted by Autolite

I think the most sensible approach to effective 'gun' control is to start by redefining issue to reflect the true nature of the problem.

Let's try calling it "Crime Control".

Acknowledge the elephant in the room and go from there...

Call it what you like. So as regards the OP, any thoughts at all? You haven't so much as said if you're in favor of anything or nothing.

Right in the OP I ask "where do guns rights advocates come down on responsible ownership?" It would be great if anyone would like to voice an opinion of some kind. Is this seriously as bad as walking into R&P and asking what's so bad about solipsism anyway?

[Hellbound]

I would sugegst you don't get much response because the issue is too polarized. Which is generally why nothing effective ever happens in legistlature, as well (IMHO).

YOu have two extremes that are both very vocal, and end up representing the bulk of argument (even though they may well represent the minority of opinion):

On one side, you have the people insisting on a ban that use emotive arguments, hasty generalizations, and slippery slope fallacies. There's a tendency to immediately place into the "gun-nut" category anyone who doesn't support a ban.

On the other side you have people "supporting" gun rights that use emotive arguments, hast generalizations, and slippery slope fallacies. They have a tendency to immediately place into the "hippy communist" category anyone who doesn't support unrestricted rights.

THe moderates (in which I include myself) that are looking for effective legislation, with a focus on safety, training, and responsibility, tend to get lost in the shuffle (usually because we get strawmanned by both sides).

Can't speak for everyone, but that's pretty much why I tend to stay out of these discussions. I find they rarely become productive, and most often fall into the two extreme views bickering and the middle left out entirely.

[Almo]

For me, good gun control would treat them in the same manner as cars. It shouldn't be easier to get a gun than it is a car. Ostensibly the car regulations are for safety, so why shouldn't guns have the same kind of restriction? People can get cars if they want them, they should be able to get guns if they want them. But not without going through some paperwork.

[mikedenk]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Not saying the US doesn't have additional hurdles because we have so many more guns in circulation, but lest you think Oz is more like Canada or the UK when it comes to the gun ownership culture:

Quote:

Well, it was in—Australia at the time was, as you said, a country, and it still is a country, where hunting is an important activity. There is a—Australia wins Olympic medals in shooting. You know, in Australia there’s a high premium placed on rugged masculinity, and it’s a frontier country. And so, it has some similarities with the U.S.

And also, another similarity was that we had had, in the previous couple of decades, occasionally mass shootings. About once a year, we had a mass shooting. And on each occasion, there was a lot of talk about the gun laws and politicians, similar to here, actually, avoiding the issue, saying, "Well, we need to look at family values and mental health and everything else," and basically being too frightened to do anything about the gun laws, because the gun lobby always threatened to punish electorally any party that did actually strengthen the laws.

What happened in '96 was so shocking, and also the level of anger and dissatisfaction and frustration in the public was so high by then, that really that was the tipping point for Australia.

The real similarity is that gun-grabbers in both countries leapt at the opportunity to use tragedy to push their political cause.

They are counting on the emotional reaction to these incidents overriding critical thinking skills. Don't worry about those pesky statistics or that pesky Constitution, think of the CHIIIILLLLLDREEENNNNN!

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by mikedenk

The real similarity is that gun-grabbers in both countries leapt at the opportunity to use tragedy to push their political cause.

They are counting on the emotional reaction to these incidents overriding critical thinking skills. Don't worry about those pesky statistics or that pesky Constitution, think of the CHIIIILLLLLDREEENNNNN!

It is political! The stupidity of whining about people using the incident for political purposes is mind boggling. (BTW, I thought of this when some Republican legislator was going on about this on the news a short time ago, not when I read your post.)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by casebro

And how has the violent crime rate over all been doing in Oz since?

There are conflicting web site claims so I'll have to look into it. The Democracy Now piece said the rate of gun violence including suicides went down but someone has a web page up claiming otherwise.

Quote:

And as a result, now 15 years later, we’ve not had a mass shooting since that time, and also gun deaths in general are about 50 percent lower than what they were.

[Sledge]

I fail to see the relevance of pointing out that fewer guns will mean fewer shootings. Unless you're only interested in stopping violence and crime when it involves guns.

[Sam.I.Am]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

There are conflicting web site claims so I'll have to look into it. The Democracy Now piece said the rate of gun violence including suicides went down but someone has a web page up claiming otherwise.

Notice that the spike starts right about when illegal drugs started becoming pervasive in this country. Also notice that it is trending downwards even after the so called "Assault Weapons Ban" was taken out of effect. I should point out that this is assault deaths in general (including guns) and not gun deaths alone.

I guess my point is that gun availability alone is not the root cause of the problem. I think that drugs and poverty drive it much more so than anything else. Mental health, while important, is probably not really a driving factor in overall assault violence right now however the crazy people do tend to grab the headlines because when they do snap they tend to do so in a spectacular fashion.

[Ranb]

There are people falling all over themselves to get in their opinion on what they feel are suitable firearms for the civilian populous.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/opinio...html?hpt=hp_c3

Quote:

Semiautomatic handguns and semiautomatic assault rifles that fire many rounds in a minute were not envisaged by the founders nor do they do much more to enhance self-defense than an ordinary pistol or rifle.

Such semiautomatic weapons also are not much use for hunting deer and the like. But they are very good for killing lots of Americans quickly.

Peter Bergen isn't so bright. Rifles like the AR-15, Ar-10 and SKS are entirely suitable for game hunters in the United States. The AR-15 is readily available chambered in anything from 17 to 50 caliber and is suitable for taking any game animal in the country. While it is excusable for Mr. Bergen to lack knowledge of these rifles, it is inexcusable to claim they are not much use for hunting deer. I guess he thinks the people reading his opinions are not so smart.

Ranb

[Sam.I.Am]

Originally Posted by Ranb

There are people falling all over themselves to get in their opinion on what they feel are suitable firearms for the civilian populous.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/opinio...html?hpt=hp_c3

Quote:

Semiautomatic handguns and semiautomatic assault rifles that fire many rounds in a minute were not envisaged by the founders nor do they do much more to enhance self-defense than an ordinary pistol or rifle.

Such semiautomatic weapons also are not much use for hunting deer and the like. But they are very good for killing lots of Americans quickly.

Peter Bergen isn't so bright. Rifles like the AR-15, Ar-10 and SKS are entirely suitable for game hunters in the United States. The AR-15 is readily available chambered in anything from 17 to 50 caliber and is suitable for taking any game animal in the country. While it is excusable for Mr. Bergen to lack knowledge of these rifles, it is inexcusable to claim they are not much use for hunting deer. I guess he thinks the people reading his opinions are not so smart.

Ranb

Amazingly enough nobody is clamoring for the police to carry "Ordinary" handguns (I assume that he means revolvers here) seeing as they don't do much more to enhance self-defense... I wonder why.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Almo

For me, good gun control would treat them in the same manner as cars. It shouldn't be easier to get a gun than it is a car. Ostensibly the car regulations are for safety, so why shouldn't guns have the same kind of restriction? People can get cars if they want them, they should be able to get guns if they want them. But not without going through some paperwork.

Well, considering you're working from a flawed premise, you'll have to start over.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am

....
I guess my point is that gun availability alone is not the root cause of the problem. ...

I don't believe anyone is saying it is.

The argument gun control won't help enough is a poor argument if the evidence is, it will help some.

Yes, you need to look at cost vs benefit, I see very little cost except to a small minority of gun fanatics and the gun manufacturers.

Do you see a greater cost?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am

Amazingly enough nobody is clamoring for the police to carry "Ordinary" handguns (I assume that he means revolvers here) seeing as they don't do much more to enhance self-defense... I wonder why.

And yet millions of us live our lives without the need for massive fire power against the kind of criminals the police are often up against.

Maybe you should have a few RPGs and a tank or two. You never know when the county will be invaded by the enemy.

[Sledge]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I don't believe anyone is saying it is.

The argument gun control won't help enough is a poor argument if the evidence is, it will help some.

Awesome. Do you have that evidence?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Sledge

I fail to see the relevance of pointing out that fewer guns will mean fewer shootings. Unless you're only interested in stopping violence and crime when it involves guns.

Huh?

What kind of logic is this? Unless we cure cancer and heart disease we shouldn't be bothering with homicide?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Sledge

Awesome. Do you have that evidence?

There is an abundance of evidence that countries with more guns have more gun deaths, households with guns are more likely to have the residents killed with the guns than said gun owner will use the gun in self defense.

Clearly people like yourself are not interested in evidence that contradicts your beliefs.

[Sledge]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Huh?

What kind of logic is this? Unless we cure cancer and heart disease we shouldn't be bothering with homicide?

Let me give you an example and see if you can figure it out. I was going to shoot someone to death. Instead, I stab them to death. Do you think that person is better off?

[StankApe]

you can own RPG's and tanks! (there was already a thread about this)
they cost lots of $$$, but if you are willing to go through the paperwork, you can own them!

same with a mini gun.



Tighten the laws so private sales are subject to background checks

enforce the laws as they are already written right now

increase penalties for using a firearm in the commission of a crime

define weapons accurately rather than "looks scary" or "doesn't look scary" even though the two weapons are the same (I showed this earlier but for those who weren't on that thread here it is again)

which of these weapons are "assault weapons"?

















the answer is either both or neither (depending on how you choose to frame it).

They are both .223 caliber semi-automatic rifles. One looks scary, the other doesn't. Both are probably used in hog hunting.

[BStrong]

From my pov based on my training and experience, if I were put in charge of revamping firearms laws across the board this is what I'd do - warning - there will something guaranteed to piss off everyone.

Federal control over the states - no no-control states, no over controlled states.

Draconian penalities for criminal or negligent misuse or storage of a firearm, including mandatory minimum sentence enhancments for use of a firearm in crime that would be completely seperate from the sentence in the underlying indictment, with no concurrent sentence and no probation/parole option for the court - Example - possession of a firearm during the course of a robbery that doesn't imvolve injury to the victim, lets say 10 years on the firearm charge, to be served in full before 1 day credit on the robbery charge. You get the idea.

Safe storage accross the board - you can purchase a basic steel key entry storage cabinent that will keep kids or honest people out for under $200.00, Undividual pistol safes can be purchased for $100.00 or less.

Safe storage laws not to be intended to require firearms under lock and key when the owner is in residence - the law would be intended to provide security against theft primarily, not as a restriction prohibiting defensive use.

All firearms sales of title 1 firearms subject to NICS instant background check.

All sales must be conducted through an FFL dealer (allowed to charge a modest fee) and subject to the NICS check as above.

Any theft of a firearm must be reported asap - if the owner is in Italy for a month and comes back to find he/she has been robbed, the first call better be to the local agency.

Shall issue carry permits available in every state, subject to training and live fire range qualification every six months - I'd suggest a minimum classroom component of 32 hrs. (an abbreviated version of Police Officer Standards and Training) and the live fire test should be comprehensive. If you want to carry, you have to measure up.

No magazine capacity restrictions - it's a complete waste of effort.

Any semi-auto version of a design originally manufactured as a selective fire or full auto weapon would be subject to NFA registration in a seperate category, not subject to the $200.00 transfer tax or CLEO sign-off. The purchaser would be subject to the NICS instant check only, but would be required to provide a Certificate of Eligibility with photo and prints - this would be transmitted electroniclly to ATF for inclusion in the NFTR (National Firearms Transfer Record) No additional restrictions in any state on this class of firearm beyond the above stated. As part othe above, ATF would have to get their **** fully together wrt the NFTR - it's a shambles now and has been so for the last 30 or so years, don't get me started.

All of the above must be stored in actual safes or vaults. The buyer can bring in a pic of his setup, and sign a statement under threat of prosecution for perjury and a loss of firearms rights for a minimum of let's say, 5 years if his/her semi-auto military type firearms are stolen from home, and there is evidence that the firearms were not securly stored - if a bad actor can remove the whole safe, and the evidence supports that, no charges against the firearm owner

NFA weapons and devices -

Rescind the section of the Firearms Owners Protection Act prohibiting the manufacture of new machine guns - since 1934, there has been ONE crime known to have been commited with prosecution resulting in conviction from possession of a registered MG, and I'm ashamed to admit that it was a LEO who commited the crime. Registered weapons and devices have not been and are not a problem. With the buy in point where it is, even assuming a drop in price for the lower end of the price scale, anybody willing to go through the whole process and a 5 figure investment isn't likely to act out in any criminal fashion.

Oh yeah, carry permit fees, CoE licenses etc, have to be reasonably related to the costs to administer, no $10,000.00 permit fees...

Fire away, I know I'm going to get it from both sides.

[Sledge]

I honestly can't see anything there I'd disagree with, BStrong. If you're ever in a position to run for Prime Minister in the UK, you have my vote.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

There is an abundance of evidence that countries with more guns have more gun deaths, households with guns are more likely to have the residents killed with the guns than said gun owner will use the gun in self defense.

Clearly people like yourself are not interested in evidence that contradicts your beliefs.

SG, can you cite your source for the hilited portion?

Here's the other issue. If you have more lakes, the chances of drowning are higher. Of course. The chances of suffering from frostbite is higher in places like North Dakota, than say Florida. Imagine that.....

But, please explain Chicago. I've asked a few different people, a few different times, and as far as I have seen, nobody's been able to explain it.

Chicago has VERY strict gun laws. No concealed weapons, no carrying guns in vehicles, nothing like that. And yet, the murder rate is astronomical!!

Please, explain that.

[Sam.I.Am]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

And yet millions of us live our lives without the need for massive fire power against the kind of criminals the police are often up against.

Maybe you should have a few RPGs and a tank or two. You never know when the county will be invaded by the enemy.

Massive fire power? Most police carry a 9mm semi-automatic pistol and have a shotgun in their cruisers. They decidedly don't have tanks and RPG's at the ready. Methinks that you watch too much television and movies and not at the real world realities.

Just in case you're interested that data comes from here:

http://kieranhealy.org/blog/

If you go to the original post that he refers to:

http://www.kieranhealy.org/blog/arch...united-states/

He breaks it down even more by the victims state, region and race if you're interested in seeing a more detailed look at it.

[leftysergeant]

I would sign off on most of BStrong's suggestions. I would, however, go the extra step of establishing an additional layer to the militia, call it the Civil Guard.

Every gun owner is obligated to participate, to make a set number of musters during the year.

This could actually be a community-builder. If you and your neighbor are both armed, it is probably a good idea that you know each other, and will be falling in on the same station if the compost meets the ventilating device.

A bunch of armed and paranoid strangers hunkering in a bunker are not going to be very effective at repelling an invasion or quelling an insurrection, or responding to some emergency like a Sandy-scale storm.

And while we are considering one aspect of the Connecticut tragedy, maybe we shoulld take a look at one other factor and do something about the poor level of socialization inherent in home schooling. Some of the people doing it are really scarey people. Lots of white nationalists are into that, you know.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by StankApe

you can own RPG's and tanks! (there was already a thread about this)
they cost lots of $$$, but if you are willing to go through the paperwork, you can own them!

same with a mini gun.



Tighten the laws so private sales are subject to background checks

enforce the laws as they are already written right now

increase penalties for using a firearm in the commission of a crime

define weapons accurately rather than "looks scary" or "doesn't look scary" even though the two weapons are the same (I showed this earlier but for those who weren't on that thread here it is again)

which of these weapons are "assault weapons"?

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?...pictureid=7114


http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?...pictureid=7115












the answer is either both or neither (depending on how you choose to frame it).

They are both .223 caliber semi-automatic rifles. One looks scary, the other doesn't. Both are probably used in hog hunting.

Stank, you're right. I've used my .223 for hunting hogs on a few occasions. I prefer a shotgun personally, but the .223 is good for long range.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Stank, you're right. I've used my .223 for hunting hogs on a few occasions. I prefer a shotgun personally, but the .223 is good for long range.

.223 seems kind of light for hogs.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by BStrong

From my pov based on my training and experience, if I were put in charge of revamping firearms laws across the board this is what I'd do - warning - there will something guaranteed to piss off everyone.

Federal control over the states - no no-control states, no over controlled states.

Draconian penalities for criminal or negligent misuse or storage of a firearm, including mandatory minimum sentence enhancments for use of a firearm in crime that would be completely seperate from the sentence in the underlying indictment, with no concurrent sentence and no probation/parole option for the court - Example - possession of a firearm during the course of a robbery that doesn't imvolve injury to the victim, lets say 10 years on the firearm charge, to be served in full before 1 day credit on the robbery charge. You get the idea.

Safe storage accross the board - you can purchase a basic steel key entry storage cabinent that will keep kids or honest people out for under $200.00, Undividual pistol safes can be purchased for $100.00 or less.

Safe storage laws not to be intended to require firearms under lock and key when the owner is in residence - the law would be intended to provide security against theft primarily, not as a restriction prohibiting defensive use.

All firearms sales of title 1 firearms subject to NICS instant background check.

All sales must be conducted through an FFL dealer (allowed to charge a modest fee) and subject to the NICS check as above.

Any theft of a firearm must be reported asap - if the owner is in Italy for a month and comes back to find he/she has been robbed, the first call better be to the local agency.

Shall issue carry permits available in every state, subject to training and live fire range qualification every six months - I'd suggest a minimum classroom component of 32 hrs. (an abbreviated version of Police Officer Standards and Training) and the live fire test should be comprehensive. If you want to carry, you have to measure up.

No magazine capacity restrictions - it's a complete waste of effort.

Any semi-auto version of a design originally manufactured as a selective fire or full auto weapon would be subject to NFA registration in a seperate category, not subject to the $200.00 transfer tax or CLEO sign-off. The purchaser would be subject to the NICS instant check only, but would be required to provide a Certificate of Eligibility with photo and prints - this would be transmitted electroniclly to ATF for inclusion in the NFTR (National Firearms Transfer Record) No additional restrictions in any state on this class of firearm beyond the above stated. As part othe above, ATF would have to get their **** fully together wrt the NFTR - it's a shambles now and has been so for the last 30 or so years, don't get me started.

All of the above must be stored in actual safes or vaults. The buyer can bring in a pic of his setup, and sign a statement under threat of prosecution for perjury and a loss of firearms rights for a minimum of let's say, 5 years if his/her semi-auto military type firearms are stolen from home, and there is evidence that the firearms were not securly stored - if a bad actor can remove the whole safe, and the evidence supports that, no charges against the firearm owner

NFA weapons and devices -

Rescind the section of the Firearms Owners Protection Act prohibiting the manufacture of new machine guns - since 1934, there has been ONE crime known to have been commited with prosecution resulting in conviction from possession of a registered MG, and I'm ashamed to admit that it was a LEO who commited the crime. Registered weapons and devices have not been and are not a problem. With the buy in point where it is, even assuming a drop in price for the lower end of the price scale, anybody willing to go through the whole process and a 5 figure investment isn't likely to act out in any criminal fashion.

Oh yeah, carry permit fees, CoE licenses etc, have to be reasonably related to the costs to administer, no $10,000.00 permit fees...

Fire away, I know I'm going to get it from both sides.

Not from me. All of those are sensible, and make sense. No issues whatsoever.

[StankApe]

Some people I know like to use lighter caliber rds. I guess for the sport of it or something...

Being i don't hunt, I was guessing at their possible usage as well.

The point really was about how two similar weapons can create different emotions based on cosmetic things.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Sledge

I fail to see the relevance of pointing out that fewer guns will mean fewer shootings. Unless you're only interested in stopping violence and crime when it involves guns.

Well it could be pointed out that guns tend to be more likely to create a fatality. There was an attack on a school in China at about the same time as Newtown's, but it involved a knife. 20 school children stabbed, zero fatalies.

[Sam.I.Am]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Not from me. All of those are sensible, and make sense. No issues whatsoever.

I concur. It will never happen but those seem to be reasonable controls while fulfilling the intent of the 2nd. The criminal sentences for robbery seem a bit heavy handed but otherwise I'm fine with it.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by casebro

And how has the violent crime rate over all been doing in Oz since?

One thing I haven't been able to find is if there is a relationship between the violent crime rate and murder rates. i.e. Does the US have a far higher murder rate, but lower violent crime rate, because what would have been a violent crime had the offender not had a weapon, becomes a murder when the offender does has access to a gun?

So does ther US have a lower violent crime rate simply because more of those types of crimes convert to full blown murder compared to less heavily armed countries?

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

I would sign off on most of BStrong's suggestions. I would, however, go the extra step of establishing an additional layer to the militia, call it the Civil Guard.

Every gun owner is obligated to participate, to make a set number of musters during the year.

This could actually be a community-builder. If you and your neighbor are both armed, it is probably a good idea that you know each other, and will be falling in on the same station if the compost meets the ventilating device.

A bunch of armed and paranoid strangers hunkering in a bunker are not going to be very effective at repelling an invasion or quelling an insurrection, or responding to some emergency like a Sandy-scale storm.

And while we are considering one aspect of the Connecticut tragedy, maybe we shoulld take a look at one other factor and do something about the poor level of socialization inherent in home schooling. Some of the people doing it are really scarey people. Lots of white nationalists are into that, you know.

Not a bad idea, although I can see that there would be a bureacratic requirement involved that would need tending to, as well as the necessity to account for differing physical abilities and skill levels.

Might be a great way to involve individuals in improving their own communities.

[Sam.I.Am]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Well it could be pointed out that guns tend to be more likely to create a fatality. There was an attack on a school in China at about the same time as Newtown's, but it involved a knife. 20 school children stabbed, zero fatalies.

That was apparently not the "norm" (no fatalities).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8582203.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/wo...hina.html?_r=0

I recently read somewhere that in China school stabbing sprees are an ongoing problem.

[StankApe]

I wonder if you would see an increase in crime on those days of militia muster? The criminals would know all the gun owners were all in one place!

[rwguinn]

" A Well-regulated militia..."
Disregarding the fact that "regulated" had different common meaning back then, the militia part is interesting, although, by the SCOTUS, irrelevant.
A militia SHOULD be made up of folks who actually know the muzzle end from the butt, how to make it go "Bang", and how to keep it from going "bang".
Trust me-when you teach Hunter Ed, as I did for several years in Colorado, you meet and try to teach a number of folks who you do not want to be in the field with. Having to take a test before you can purchase or possess is another feel-good idea that does not a damn thing to address the problem
The problem with all the stuff proposed has one big problem.
By definition, criminals disregard any law the feel like disregarding. Licensed FFL dealers, tests, whatever, is not going to keep the criminal from obtaining what he wants. At best, it might slow down the impulsive types, as waiting periods did--but the measures introduced here and everywhere are not going to put a dent in the overall crime rate.
It's CRIME CONTROL, not GUN CONTROL we need.