What will it take for gun lovers to say ENOUGH

[KathyK]

Pssst. That's not a safe. That's a box. Safes are attached to structure so they can't go on walk about. And, yeah, I get it that "marketing" will tell you otherwise, but surely, thinking carefully as a "responsible gun owner" who does not want to contribute to the proliferation of stolen weapons in hands of criminals, the definition of a "safe" should come clear.

My only heartburn with this is that 'safes' by your definition, are expensive.

IMO, whatever "control" strategy is put in place would continue to allow middle class people to continue to exercise their right to own a firearm.

Things like background checks can certainly be more cost effective for the masses although there is still a question of ultimately who pays for them.

People who want to own guns pay for it, just like people who want to own cars pay for them and everything that goes along with owning them. Why would anyone think that someone else should pay for their car and the expenses that come with owning it, or for the expenses that (IMO) should come with owning a gun?

[WheresMyWhite]

'cause I'm thinking cars (or transportation) were not mentioned in the Bill of Rights nor are cars particularly useful for self-defense unless you are planning on driving away from the guy that's got you cornered in your bedroom...

[KathyK]

Just because the second amendment says you can have guns (and I disagree about what it really means), how in the world does that mean you're not responsible for the costs (and the consequences) of having them?

The Constitution protects my right to practice my religion. Should I expect someone else to pay for any costs associated with it?

[seahorsefarm]

People who want to own guns pay for it, just like people who want to own cars pay for them and everything that goes along with owning them. Why would anyone think that someone else should pay for their car and the expenses that come with owning it, or for the expenses that (IMO) should come with owning a gun?

'cause I'm thinking cars (or transportation) were not mentioned in the Bill of Rights nor are cars particularly useful for self-defense unless you are planning on driving away from the guy that's got you cornered in your bedroom...

Setting aside more a moment your point about things not mentioned in the Bill of Rights (a plethora of them.....especially considering how many hadn't been invented yet!), which I admit I don't think I understand......

Who should pay for the costs associated with guns (the public safety costs, the health care costs, the licensing fees, the sales taxes, the costs to arm teachers if we go that route, etc. etc.), if not gun owners? Seems to me it makes perfect sense for gun owners, whether they own their gun(s) for hobby shooting or for self defense, to pay more to cover those costs. The right to own something doesn't automatically free the owner of all obligation to pay, essentially, a user fee to help defray the costs to the general public. In my opinion.

[KathyK]

And really, why stop at expecting everyone else to pony up for gun incidentals? Since you're guaranteed the right to have them, you really shouldn't even have to pay for the weapons themselves. Right?

[WheresMyWhite]

And really, why stop at expecting everyone else to pony up for gun incidentals? Since you're guaranteed the right to have them, you really shouldn't even have to pay for the weapons themselves. Right?

My head hurts...

I do expect that an owner pays for their gun, yes.

Packing on the tons of additional expenses that you all seem to feel are required for "responsible" gun ownership does impact those of more limited income.... safes that fasten to the floor, insurance, training, extensive background checks, licensing, administration of all this "stuff", etc... sure, the gun owner/purchaser should bear some cost but this will, and I am sure you wouldn't think it would be a big concern, price some potential purchasers/owner out of owning a gun... easy to say 'too bad' until they *do* need it for self-defense. Some of these expenses are not even associated with purchasing/owning a car (mandatory safes, extensive background checks come to mind).

[KathyK]

You're right, too bad. If you can't afford it, you don't get to have it. My right not to be shot by gun toting people who don't have insurance, training, background checks, etc., way overrides their right to wave their weapons around in public.

[Tabby]

You absolutely pay for safety features, regulations and registration on a car as an owner. Some of it you see as fees. Some is wrapped up in the price of the car. Taxpayers do pay for roads even if they don't have a car but considering all their food and stuff they buy are delivered on those roads it is not like they don't have an interest. Why should someone who wants nothing to do with guns have to pay for someone else who does? I can't think of a single benefit to me if you have a gun, though I can see benefits to roads even if I don't drive.

[WheresMyWhite]

Guess I'll take my discussion elsewhere as it certainly doesn't appear to be any "discussion" here...

PS - you vigorously deny that you want to ban guns but it appears to me that you'd be more than happy that the majority of Americans would not be able to afford a gun. That would allow you to virtuously say that it wasn't *your* fault they couldn't own a gun...

[KathyK]

So let's "discuss" this. If someone wants a gun today that he or she can't afford, is that an infringement of his or her rights? Do you expect me to help pay for it?

[WheresMyWhite]

Tell me what you want me to say and I'll say it (not).

That seems to be the theme of discussion here...

[Tuffytown]

You realize that goes 2 ways. Are others expected to stop expressing their opinions because you have given yours? I guess you should tell others how you feel it is appropriate for a discussion of opposing opinions to go.

[boots-aregard]

easy to say 'too bad' until they *do* need it for self-defense. .

On TOB, we are reminded that a knife is more lethal than a gun, because it never runs out of ammo. So, self defense, CHECK!

[boots-aregard]

Guess I'll take my discussion elsewhere as it certainly doesn't appear to be any "discussion" here...

PS - you vigorously deny that you want to ban guns but it appears to me that you'd be more than happy that the majority of Americans would not be able to afford a gun. That would allow you to virtuously say that it wasn't *your* fault they couldn't own a gun...

I have to say, I would be very happy if weapons of mass destruction (and I consider a rifle with more than 2 bullets to fit that description) were too expensive for all but the upper .01% to own. But I'm perfectly OK with everybody and his brother owning an over-and-under. And I'm not being exactly facetious here, either. Killing _power_ is a topic we dance around, since the NRA is anxious that non-NRA-folks should always be mocked for not knowing the exact descriptors for various weapons, when non-NRA-folks are really concerned about killing _power_, as in # of bullets that can be discharged quickly (now, of course, someone will cue up the experts who can shoot a colt revolver with the speed of a gattling gun, but that's to be expected in the race to obfuscate.) I'm all for reducing the killing _power_ of generally available weapons. Can I show it to be effective? What -- with no studies being done because of the NRA backed-congress passed ban? How could I?

Tho the rise in sheer # of mass shootings has escalated markedly as of the end of the "assault weapons ban" expiration. There's that.

[KathyK]

So let's "discuss" this. If someone wants a gun today that he or she can't afford, is that an infringement of his or her rights? Do you expect me to help pay for it?

Tell me what you want me to say and I'll say it (not).

That seems to be the theme of discussion here...

It's obvious you have no good answer to my perfectly legitimate question. Maybe you could say that.

[WheresMyWhite]

It's obvious you have no good answer to my perfectly legitimate question. Maybe you could say that.

You don't appear to think I have any good answers and I'm more than tired of being beat down with suggestions...

[KathyK]

Ok, let's put it this way: you have no answer at all for to my perfectly legitimate question, other than to tell me what I "appear" to think. It's a not-too-clever way to avoid answering.

[Tabby]

I don't think there is an answer, KathyK. For whatever reason that I can't begin to comprehend, the pro-gun segment of America will not bend even the slightest to attempt to understand the other side. I thought we were having a good discussion as well but clearly we crossed some kind of line in the sand.

[boots-aregard]

I don't think there is an answer, KathyK. For whatever reason that I can't begin to comprehend, the pro-gun segment of America will not bend even the slightest to attempt to understand the other side. I thought we were having a good discussion as well but clearly we crossed some kind of line in the sand.

In fairness, the pro-gun segment of America figures they aren't the problem. They are law abiding, and the monsters who do mass shootings are anomalies. I'm pretty sure they're right, too. MOST people who own guns never do squat with them, and the guns mostly live in the basement or in the gun box. Some are hunters and bring the guns out during the season, then clean 'em and put them up for the rest of the time. (Whether they're actually responsible while hunting or drunk is a question, we're not worried about that so much when we're talking mass shootings.)

So, yeah, they don't understand why we're all up in their grill.

But of course, their ability to waltz into a Walmart any day of the week and obtain a weapon is the same opportunity offered to the monsters. And that's the difficult bit. We don't have a monster test.

[WheresMyWhite]

Ok, let's put it this way: you have no answer at all for to my perfectly legitimate question, other than to tell me what I "appear" to think. It's a not-too-clever way to avoid answering.

Go ahead and think what you would like. I am tired of beating my head against this wall...

[KathyK]

And yet, here you are!

[KathyK]

I don't think there is an answer, KathyK. For whatever reason that I can't begin to comprehend, the pro-gun segment of America will not bend even the slightest to attempt to understand the other side. I thought we were having a good discussion as well but clearly we crossed some kind of line in the sand.

In fairness, the pro-gun segment of America figures they aren't the problem. They are law abiding, and the monsters who do mass shootings are anomalies. I'm pretty sure they're right, too. MOST people who own guns never do squat with them, and the guns mostly live in the basement or in the gun box. Some are hunters and bring the guns out during the season, then clean 'em and put them up for the rest of the time. (Whether they're actually responsible while hunting or drunk is a question, we're not worried about that so much when we're talking mass shootings.)

So, yeah, they don't understand why we're all up in their grill.

But of course, their ability to waltz into a Walmart any day of the week and obtain a weapon is the same opportunity offered to the monsters. And that's the difficult bit. We don't have a monster test.

I'm concerned not only by mass murderers/anomalies/mental illness, but by those "law-abiding" gun owners who kill and injure thousands of people every year because a) they see themselves as "good guys with guns," or b) they leave their loaded weapons unattended so that children have access to them, or c) they accidentally kill other people because they have little or no training.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... nniversary

At Least 194 Children Have Been Shot to Death Since Newtown
The NRA says arming more adults will protect kids—but most are killed at home, our investigation shows, often with unsecured guns.

Honestly, if the only people the gun apologists shot were each other, I wouldn't care as much.

[Code3]

I'm concerned not only by mass murderers/anomalies/mental illness, but by those "law-abiding" gun owners who kill and injure thousands of people every year because a) they see themselves as "good guys with guns," or b) they leave their loaded weapons unattended so that children have access to them, or c) they accidentally kill other people because they have little or no training.

As a person who owns multiple guns, I don't consider any of the examples you give to exemplify what I would consider a responsible gun owner.

As a police officer, I don't want a heavily armed citizenry. I don't want to rush to the scene of a shooting only to try to decipher who is the good guy, who is the bad guy and who shot who. And I certainly don't want a bunch of people without ongoing, realistic training to see themselves as the good guy with a gun.

I'm totally in support of qualifying, registering, insuring, etc. I would give up my AR-15 (purchased to protect our herd from coyotes). I can use something else. And I am willing to pay the cost of all that qualifying, registering, insuring, etc.

I have to qualify twice a year at work in order to carry a gun on duty. Why shouldn't I have to qualify with my personal weapons?

[KathyK]

This is why I have the utmost respect for you, Code3. If all gun owners felt as you do, we wouldn't continue to have many, many tragic and pointless gun deaths in this country.

As a person who owns multiple guns, I don't consider any of the examples you give to exemplify what I would consider a responsible gun owner.

But if you ask them, they'll insist they are responsible gun owners.

[boots-aregard]

They are responsible gun owners, because nothing bad has happened. Yet.

It's like being a good driver. You're a good driver until you are in an accident. But are you then a BAD driver? No. Mostly you're just a good driver who had an accident. *sigh*.

But for a large percentage of gun owners, they really don't have accidents (because they aren't really using their guns). SO, they don't see the need, and they CERTAINLY don't see any need for registration, and weapons training, and certification, and insurance!

[KathyK]

There are lots of very bad drivers who are quite lucky before their luck runs out and they have (or cause) accidents. You see them on the road all the time. But if you ask them, they'll tell you they're very good drivers.

[seahorsefarm]

I'm concerned not only by mass murderers/anomalies/mental illness, but by those "law-abiding" gun owners who kill and injure thousands of people every year because a) they see themselves as "good guys with guns," or b) they leave their loaded weapons unattended so that children have access to them, or c) they accidentally kill other people because they have little or no training.

As a person who owns multiple guns, I don't consider any of the examples you give to exemplify what I would consider a responsible gun owner.

As a police officer, I don't want a heavily armed citizenry. I don't want to rush to the scene of a shooting only to try to decipher who is the good guy, who is the bad guy and who shot who. And I certainly don't want a bunch of people without ongoing, realistic training to see themselves as the good guy with a gun.

I'm totally in support of qualifying, registering, insuring, etc. I would give up my AR-15 (purchased to protect our herd from coyotes). I can use something else. And I am willing to pay the cost of all that qualifying, registering, insuring, etc.

I have to qualify twice a year at work in order to carry a gun on duty. Why shouldn't I have to qualify with my personal weapons?

All good points, but I was most interested that as a police officer you don't want a heavily armed citizenry. I sometimes wonder why I don't see more editorials or ads or statements in the media from police officers weighing pros and cons of this concept. I can't think of a more important, more invested group than police officers so I would love to read more of their opinions.

[Tabby]

There are lots of very bad drivers who are quite lucky before their luck runs out and they have (or cause) accidents. You see them on the road all the time. But if you ask them, they'll tell you they're very good drivers.

Bad drivers are often caught, fined, charged and/or removed from the road before they have or cause accidents. Those motor vehicle regulations have a way of keeping everyone following the rules. Have you ever driven in a country with little to no rules of the road? It's pretty scary. Yet for all of our motor vehicle rules and regulations, virtually everyone of age has (or drives) a car.

[Code3]

All good points, but I was most interested that as a police officer you don't want a heavily armed citizenry. I sometimes wonder why I don't see more editorials or ads or statements in the media from police officers weighing pros and cons of this concept. I can't think of a more important, more invested group than police officers so I would love to read more of their opinions.

It seems like all we hear from is the yahoos (including sheriffs and chiefs of police) saying they want everyone armed. They aren't thinking that one through, or haven't yet gone into a situation where people are armed, terrified, and shooting at anything that moves. Maybe they haven't even been through an active shooter training.

Or maybe they just disagree with me... Nah, that can't be!!

[nightlace]

Just my opinion: Easy access to Guns of Mass Murder will lead to more mass murders.

[Alex]

Just as w/car technology, Where'sMyWhite, I expect that some of these new gun design mandates like biometric-owner safety locks will be expensive for a while but they'll soon drop down in price. In the meantime, people can always continue to buy used guns without such things at gun shows and from friends rather than buy right out of a dealer's showroom. I'm anxious to see what Pres. Obama's executive order on guns is going to include. Hopefully it will allay some of my fears about the loopholes because as far as I'm concerned, most legitimate owners should be able to tolerate a waiting period prior to taking possession.