At 12/17/12 05:21 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 12/17/12 04:34 PM, TheMason wrote: A) Pistols and hunting rifles are far more deadly than assault rifles because of the ammo that is more common for them.

I know, but most people don't know that, and that includes non-career criminals. Ask people on the street, and 100 light criminals (i.e. ones that have not committed a gun crime before, or have done it just a few times) and chances are damn near all of them will say assault rifles are deadlier.

I know this sounds perverse...but isn't that a good thing? If some moron is going to go out with evil intentions...don't we want them having the least lethal weapon? Doesn't bad guys having assault rifles work in the favor of the victim?

B) On the other hand, hunting with AK-47s and SKSs have become increasingly more common

But they are still extremely rare compared to hunting rifles and pistols.

I don't know. The sense I get from being a part of the shooting community is that 'rare' is not a good term to use. 'Less common' maybe. But dude, I see them at every gun store I go to. You go to a gun show you see just as many if not slightly more assault rifle clones than you see hunting rifles. And only slightly less assault rifles than you see handguns.

Also, there is the price point. If we're talking about AKs and SKSs, we're talking about $250 for the SKS (about the same as a .22) or $500-700 for the AK. Then there is the ammo. I can buy Russian surplus for about $6.25 for a box of 20. I spend $20 for a box of 20 .270 deer hunting ammo. $25-30 for 20-25 self defense handgun rounds. $20-25 for 50 FMJ target handgun rounds.

Now American assault rifles such as AR-15s and Mini-14s do tend to be very expensive ($900-1,200 for the AR-15 and about $700 for the Mini-14). In the case of an AR you can't use the cheap Russian ammo...but have to use brass which costs about $10-12 per box of 20.

Also their lighter recoil and shorter overall length make them good for training kids and new shooters. As well as their ruggedness. My wife and I are trying to have a kid...and if they want to go deer hunting my AK will be his/her first deer rifle.

But the point is they are no longer 'rare' but 'common'. :)

As for the rest...I absolutely agree with you. :)

At 12/18/12 04:57 PM, TheMason wrote: I agree with Revo earlier. This is a prime opportunity for Democrats to push something anti-gun through. Never mind they are talking about firearms that are rarely used in these (or any) types of crimes.

thats why we need the NRA and republicans not to cave into the Dems and media pressure.

Plus we've got a pussy Speaker of the House. In the 'fiscal cliff' negotiations he's letting Obama body-check him and have his way with him like he was a $10 whore.

if you wants guns and a $10 whore just go to Bill Clinton

*HIGH FIVE*

At 12/18/12 05:33 PM, TheMason wrote: I know this sounds perverse...but isn't that a good thing? If some moron is going to go out with evil intentions...don't we want them having the least lethal weapon? Doesn't bad guys having assault rifles work in the favor of the victim?

That's kind of what I was hinting at. Not directly saying it or advocating it, but implying and suggesting the possibility.

I don't know. The sense I get from being a part of the shooting community is that 'rare' is not a good term to use. 'Less common' maybe. But dude, I see them at every gun store I go to. You go to a gun show you see just as many if not slightly more assault rifle clones than you see hunting rifles. And only slightly less assault rifles than you see handguns.

But you said 'shooting community' and 'gun show'. How many people belong to a shooting community or have ever been to a gun show? Not that many.

Where do a good amount on non-gun enthusiasts buy their hunting rifles? Places like Dicks or WalMart where they only sell the hunting rifle style rifles.

I am not talking about the enthusiast just as I was not talking about the experience or connected hard criminals (as they make up a fairly small number of gun crime criminals). I am talking about the Joe blows. The people who are about as experienced with the capabilities of different types of guns as my family. The average husband who finds his wife cheating and then murders her or the lover (or both) and the true loser criminal who spontaneously gets a gun to aid his crime.

But the point is they are no longer 'rare' but 'common'. :)

Again, you're not exactly a lay person when it comes to guns. When I was at law school it was 'common' for people to have undergraduate degrees, and fairly common for people to have several degrees including two undergards and a masters, but in the real world not that many have bachelor's and extremely few have more than one bachelor's or higher degree. You are in a community that knows this and acts accordingly, whereas the vast majority do not and act based on what they think they know, which is often wrong.

At 12/18/12 07:39 PM, RacistBassist wrote: Ok, let's establish something right now. If you refer to any semi-automatic weapon as an assault rifle, you are not allowed to voice your opinion on the subject because there is no such thing as a semi-automatic assault rifle outside of misusing the term.

So we should just use your 100% self serving definition that isn't backed up by any source? We should also ignore the fact that there are multiple different definitions that fit under the vague term of "assault rifle'?

No thanks. I'll stick to the REAL world.

Obama to Give Congress Plan on Gun Control Within Weeks

goddamn it. hopefully the Republican Congress and the NRA kills it on the floor.

First off I would like to make the point that I am not one of those gun nuts that sleeps with there gun under there pillow because there afraid that the government might try to take it away. That being said I am still for the second amendment. That's because I believe in the constitution and the truth is you will never be able to stop crazy people from killing other people.
Now many would say "well if you didn't have guns they wouldn't be able to kill so many people." This would be true if it was not possible to kill alot of people very quickly some other way. But the truth is if you get rid of guns they will find another way, with explosives or incendiary devices. Example: All it takes to make a molotov cocktail is to fill an empty bottle with gasoline then put a rag on top then when you want to use it you light the rag on fire and throw it at your target. So getting rid of guns will not stop this.
Then I here people say "well if you get more gun regulations then we can stop someone like him from owning a gun." The thing these people fail to realize is that there are already regulations that stopped him from owning a gun. He got his gun by stealing it from his mother. Those regulations make no difference because criminals will just steal or buy a gun off the black market.
If your still not convinced I would like to point out how unrealistic the idea of getting rid of all guns is. First off the right to bar arms is in an amendment to the constitution. Now in order to get rid of guns you would need to pass another amendment to the constitution to over rid that. But getting an amendment past is very difficult. You need two thirds majority of congress to pass an amendment and you will never get that with getting rid of guns because its is to controversial. All the Republicans would be against it and even alot of democrats would be against getting rid of guns completely.
Finally even if you did get it past (which is impossible) what do you think would happen? The red necks would certainly rebel and we would have another civil war. Do you really think that is worth it? So lets stop this whole thing and just except that this is part of the second amendment.

Obama to Give Congress Plan on Gun Control Within Weeks

damn this is not good if the Republican congress and NRA doesn't block this I will have to seriously stock up on more firearms and ammo.

At 12/19/12 04:02 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Obama to Give Congress Plan on Gun Control Within Weeks

damn this is not good if the Republican congress and NRA doesn't block this I will have to seriously stock up on more firearms and ammo.

"Stock up"? What, your guns and ammo are going to reach their expiration date soon?

At 12/19/12 05:17 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 12/19/12 04:02 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Obama to Give Congress Plan on Gun Control Within Weeks

damn this is not good if the Republican congress and NRA doesn't block this I will have to seriously stock up on more firearms and ammo.

"Stock up"? What, your guns and ammo are going to reach their expiration date soon?

believe it or not ammo does have a expiration date (depending on storage conditions and how long stored). and I been thinking about getting a few more but with this happening I'm gonna go to the next show and buy a couple dozen firearms i'm thinking ARs and some handguns and maybe a Sniper or two.

At 12/19/12 05:17 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 12/19/12 04:02 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Obama to Give Congress Plan on Gun Control Within Weeks

damn this is not good if the Republican congress and NRA doesn't block this I will have to seriously stock up on more firearms and ammo.

"Stock up"? What, your guns and ammo are going to reach their expiration date soon?

it may be illegal to purchase certain things after a ban takes place but you may be allowed to keep/sell/trade ones available before a ban came through after it is passed.

I'll just leave these here....
Science and Gun Violence

...but you know, stock up. Fuck logic, right?

I really don't care either way, I live in one of the safest countries on earth.

At 12/19/12 07:31 PM, thegarbear14 wrote:

it may be illegal to purchase certain things after a ban takes place but you may be allowed to keep/sell/trade ones available before a ban came through after it is passed.

From what I am hearing, the AWB currently being proposed is NOT retroactive, it simply bans the commercial sale of those weapons moving forward. That still leaves open sales on secondary markets and the right to possess them, it just says you cannot buy these commercially.

On a separate note, thoughts on this? => http://www.govexec.com/excellence/promising-practices/2012/1 2/gun-buyback-programs-are-thriving-never-after-newtown/6025 9/?oref=eig-homepage-morefromGEMG

As you all know I am all for the second amendment but as I said earlier I am not one of those gun nuts that sleeps with a gun under my pillow. So I find this talk of stocking up ammo in case the government tries to take away our guns to be crazy.

Regardless of the bills Obama tries to pass, they will not give him the power to take our guns away. As I have said before to do that congress would have to pass another amendment to override the second amendment (like we did with Prohibition) and as I have explained before that's simply not going to happen.

At 12/19/12 11:14 PM, RacistBassist wrote: He keeps hammering on and on about gun violence. He seems to think getting stabbed or beaten to death is morally superior to being shot to death. Anytime people fail to mention the effect on overall violent crime and only bring up the gun related crime stats, I completely disregard them. That is a completely one sided approach to looking at things.

Guns are designed to kill. To achieve the violence rates of guns with knives, knife ownership (for purpose of defense) would have to increase well past what gun ownership is now. Reason being is that knives and such are far less lethal and effective than a gun.

If for example all guns just vanished right now, and people were unable to make them, sell them, buy them, or own them. Violent crimes involving knives and baseball bats would surely increase. But overall violent crime would dramatically decrease.

Guns are easy, simple, and capable of wiping out the lives of numerous quickly. A knife is personal, messy, slow, and would require a skilled hand to do any significant damage (by today's standards).

But removing/banning guns is not what is being called for. Control is what is being called for, by the people. For example I shouldn't, as Canadian citizen let alone even an American citizen, be able to walk into a gun show in certain states like Arizona and buy a gun and walk out without anyone knowing so much as my first name. The difference in laws between some of the states in America begs to wonder why you don't have border patrol between each state?!

Canada has a high gun ownership rate per capita, comparable even to the US. However we have gun control and in result our violent crime rate has declined over the last decade. The total (ALL CATEGORIES) murder rate in Canada averages around 100 a year. For comparison in the US it is roughly 10k just from gun deaths.

Australia had one massacre to many and in the year 1996 they passed a bill in a mere 12 days. They had a federal buyback and destruction of guns. They had 13 mass shootings leading up to that bill, and over the last 16 they have had zero. Their gun violence dropped 50%. Other violent crimes increased, but still their violent crime declines in comparison to where it would be if they didn't pass that gun control bill back in 1996.

What America needs to do, is go back to pre-1977. Pre-NRA lobbying for individual gun rights. Before the misinterpretation of the second amendment. Join us in the modern world, America. Please.

At 12/19/12 07:22 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 12/19/12 05:17 PM, Feoric wrote: "Stock up"? What, your guns and ammo are going to reach their expiration date soon?

Take me for example. I am planning on over the years purchasing a metric fuckton (Give or take a few fucks) load of ammo and several more firearms. If the regulations start hitting, I need to speed things along to ensure I can still get them.

If I was you then take out a personal loan for 15K with a low interest rate for 60 months you could buy plenty of firearms with that. go to a show for private sellers and get 3 ARs for 2K a few handguns a few hunting rifles a sniper maybe and plenty of other things then go to a sporting goods store and buy ammo and still have plenty of cash left over.

Just buy as much as you can, because the NRA has stayed too quiet this time. They dis-activated some of their social accounts too, and the one statement they recently gave was very passive, it wasn't even neutral.

Also, for anyone interested:
Sig P220 .45acp

Nitron Finish
3 Magazines
Night Sites
Box & pp's
No rail

Very accurate range pistol, but the ammo can be a little pricey.

$550

Also have a Kahr P9 9mm

DLC Finish
Nights
2 Magazines
Box, Papers come with it
Has setup and contacts

500$

Also throwing in a Kydex compact belt holster with each.

At 12/20/12 04:59 PM, Revo357912 wrote: Just buy as much as you can, because the NRA has stayed too quiet this time. They dis-activated some of their social accounts too, and the one statement they recently gave was very passive, it wasn't even neutral.

the NRA has all their accounts open and have already made their statement they waited a while to let the emotions to go down and let all the knee jerk reactions run its course.

Also, for anyone interested:
Sig P220 .45acp

Nitron Finish
3 Magazines
Night Sites
Box & pp's
No rail

Very accurate range pistol, but the ammo can be a little pricey.

$550

thats not to bad actually a steal! I migh actually go for that one SIGs are good sidearms, easily concealable.

Also have a Kahr P9 9mm

DLC Finish
Nights
2 Magazines
Box, Papers come with it
Has setup and contacts

500$

Also throwing in a Kydex compact belt holster with each.

ohh I will look into that

At 12/20/12 05:12 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 12/20/12 04:59 PM, Revo357912 wrote: Just buy as much as you can, because the NRA has stayed too quiet this time. They dis-activated some of their social accounts too, and the one statement they recently gave was very passive, it wasn't even neutral.

the NRA has all their accounts open and have already made their statement they waited a while to let the emotions to go down and let all the knee jerk reactions run its course.

Also, for anyone interested:
Sig P220 .45acp

Nitron Finish
3 Magazines
Night Sites
Box & pp's
No rail

Very accurate range pistol, but the ammo can be a little pricey.

$550

thats not to bad actually a steal! I migh actually go for that one SIGs are good sidearms, easily concealable.

Also have a Kahr P9 9mm

DLC Finish
Nights
2 Magazines
Box, Papers come with it
Has setup and contacts

500$

Also throwing in a Kydex compact belt holster with each.

ohh I will look into that

Yup, I know they are steals, and already looked up on the internet to see if the prices were competitive. I have a good deal of firearms and might start a little business with them, but for now am starting with these two since I'm hoping to make a little extra money for Christmas. Not to mention it's a good time to sell seeing how there might be stricter restrictions soon.

Also, I didn't notice that they reactivated their accounts already.

I'm switching sides on the argument once again, back to my normal pro-gun stance, since almost everyone is now anti-gun. Really good experience it was to be anti-gun though.

At 12/20/12 05:19 PM, Revo357912 wrote: Yup, I know they are steals, and already looked up on the internet to see if the prices were competitive. I have a good deal of firearms and might start a little business with them, but for now am starting with these two since I'm hoping to make a little extra money for Christmas. Not to mention it's a good time to sell seeing how there might be stricter restrictions soon.

are you licensed? if not you should do that before you purchase because if a law enforcement finds you have em without licensing you can get some pretty nasty charges.

At 12/20/12 05:24 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 12/20/12 05:19 PM, Revo357912 wrote: Yup, I know they are steals, and already looked up on the internet to see if the prices were competitive. I have a good deal of firearms and might start a little business with them, but for now am starting with these two since I'm hoping to make a little extra money for Christmas. Not to mention it's a good time to sell seeing how there might be stricter restrictions soon.

are you licensed? if not you should do that before you purchase because if a law enforcement finds you have em without licensing you can get some pretty nasty charges.

Not licensed to sell yet, but these are only personal sales, and I'm teaming up with my cousin to do this, who is legally licensed, it's just that since I'm more of the business type, I'll be handling the "selling" part and other stuff like that. Am licensed to carry a rifle however. He has all the licenses, including concealed hand gun, and license to sell firearms.

Insane killers will use whatever means necessary. Gun, knife, an airliner, mustard gas. Whatever.

Chances of dying from knife wound: 4%
Mortality rate for gunshot wounds: 22% (Does not include Shotguns)
Chances of dying from Shotgun: 70%
-On Average

In data obtained in Africa regarding wounds inflicted to the spinal cord specifically:
Stab wounds 26%
Gun wounds 35%

That is not taking into consideration the chances of making a successfully damaging stab wound vs a successfully damaging bullet wound.

Your point is moot. When it comes to ease of availability, difficulty to use and or create, and whether or not you will survive your attack, guns make the best weapon.

Also, this interesting pic of a women who was stabbed when her purse was being robbed. She was so taken in by the event and adrenaline that she didn't even notice that she had the knife stuck in her back till her parents pointed it out.

Judge who sentenced Gabby Giffords shooter writes Op-Ed supporting a strengthened AWB.

Also, I want to propose what I think are some common sense steps to tighten gun control restrictions (and I use that as a very general term):

1) Require that all states have a registry of individuals who are deemed by a licensed physician to be mentally unstable, and require that all gun sales (on both primary and secondary markets) check the names of potential buyers against that list. As it is now, people who have legitimate personality issues that would make them a risk group for gun ownership are not required to register on any kind of registration, at the federal or state level. I know this for a fact because I was committed to a psychiatric institution as a result of being homicidal with full intention of committing the act, and was not required to register nor does it show on a background check. My own personal sense of responsibility keeps me far away from guns and gun owners (I won't even be in the same house as a gun owner if I know where the weapons are kept), but I am the exception that proves the need for the rule.

2) Limit capacity for semi-automatic weapons. As I have admitted previously, I don't have the technical knowledge to say what the limit should be, but considering the Gabby Giffords shooter was taken down while reloading, and the Newtown shooter took his own life after fully emptying his 30-round magazine inside an elementary school, I would argue that reducing the legal size of clips/magazines has the potential to limit the carnage that could be caused by these types of incidents. I do believe this is currently under consideration with the new AWB that is going to be brought before Congress in January, so we'll see what happens there.

3) Increase requirements for gun safety classes, including what defines at-risk households and using gun safety classes to encourage gun owners to keep their weapons under lock and key with weapon and ammo completely separate. At risk households also need to be aware that they are at-risk households, so we would need to make that a major point in gun safety classes (if it's not already). I'm struck by the apparent incongruence of requiring some 12 hours of driver's training classes and 12 hours of actual drive time with an instructor, but a far lower level of training is required for gun owners, even none at all when those weapons are purchased on secondary markets.

4) Shut down secondary markets, or put them under the same regulation as primary markets. As it stands now, it doesn't matter if my name appeared on a registry of those who are mentally unqualified to own a gun, I could still walk into a gun show or purchase a firearm from a neighbor or friend, legally register it and then have it available to use the next time I have an episode. Again, not sure exactly how this would be done, but it needs to happen.

Here's a little something I found just as of recent, a article where teachers are allowed to carry concealed guns to schools as seen in this link.

On the serious side, people need to learn to take care of themselves and thus have the right to defend themselves, do people honestly think that "Gun Control" is going to solve things? NO, it won't, it will only make matters worse as criminals will still get there hands on guns and other weapons to carry out there activities.

They will, believe me on this, would people honestly think that Adam Peter Lanza who commited the mass shootings back in Sandy Hook Elementary School wouldn't commit his vile act if he didn't have access to guns? NO, he would still be able to find other means and carry out his vile act that killed 26 innocent people in trade, and when I mean other means, I mean he could of used knives, swords, maces, clubs, baseball bats, brass knuckles, bows, cross bows, even his own fist and feet.

Anyone who thinks that Gun Control is gonna help things? NO, it won't, again it will simply make matters worse, President Obama, if your reading this, you might as well come to the realization to what I'm trying to tell you, either way, you will one day see a Native American Decedent who's personally wronged by both political parties who will one day run for President of the Untied States oneself in the year 2020, your looking at him right now.

All will know that Gun Control just dosen't work, whatever the easy way or the hard way matters not.

At 12/19/12 05:17 PM, Feoric wrote: "Stock up"? What, your guns and ammo are going to reach their expiration date soon?

What Tony said makes economic sense as well as being practical for the gun collector.

Prices of ammo may spike as a result of what Obama and Senator Feinstein are doing so it is good to buy ammo now before it gets expensive. Especially military surplus ammo. It is cheap right now. For example I recently bought some AK ammo for $0.27/round. Got it off the internet. Now gun control advocates think anything 'military' is extraordinarilly lethal and high powered...when that is the exact opposite of reality. So they want to ban it as being 'armor piercing'.

They also do not like the idea of people ordering ammo off the internet, so that may cut-off suppliers such as Cheaperthandirt.com and Midway USA.

They also think stockpiling is bad. They hear people having thousands of rounds of ammo as being a bad thing, not normal or dangerous. So their may be some restrictions on buying in bulk coming our way. When buying in bulk, like anything else, saves money.

So what Tony is doing is perfectly reasonable.

But then again I bought 1,000 rounds of 7.62x39 yesterday. ;)

At 12/19/12 11:14 PM, RacistBassist wrote: Homes with firearms have a higher suicide with firearm rate.

Irrelevent. Peer-reviewed, scientific studies in psychology journals find that guns contribute zero to the suicide rate. If we waved a magic wand and took away all guns our suicide rate would remain level. It would not make a dent. People would just use something else.

At 12/20/12 11:29 PM, theburningliberal wrote:

Also, I want to propose what I think are some common sense steps to tighten gun control restrictions (and I use that as a very general term):

May I point out that earlier you admitted to being not just technically ignorant, but that you remain ignorant by choice?

I am all for having a reasonable, mature discussion with someone I disagree with. Quite often, even on the topic of gun control, I find that some people give me pause to think (Rav, Camaro, to name two). However, by choosing to remain ignorant (which is far worse than being closed minded BTW)...in what way do you think you can contribute to this conversation?

Any conclusion you come up with is suspect. You are either operating off of feelings...or you are just repeating talking points from someone with an agenda.

Shit...at least LeanLifter1's babble was original!

Also BurningLib,

I'm not trying to sound like an ass. I commend you on your self-control. I do find that admirable.

On the other hand, since you lack the knowledge you cannot say what or how much training is necessary, needed or appropriate.

Also, there is a danger to banning high-capacity magazines.
* In Aurora Holme's 100 round mag...jammed. See high-cap mags increase the chance of a firearm malfunction (especially AR-15/M-16 type guns).

* They also lead to spray and pray. This means the vast majority of rounds go over people's heads. By eliminating high-capacity mags, Obama and Feinstein will only encourage slow, accurate, aimed fire by the next spree shooter. This will result in more deaths.

* Also, as I stated earlier, military style weapons are not the weapons that cause death and destruction. They are by far the least lethal out there.

In your knee-jerk need to feel like we've done something...the efforts by the gun control crowd, Obama and Feinstein will most likely lead to more death...instead of solving anything.

All because they are willfully ignorant of which they legislate.

Personally, since I'm from the USA, and since we have the second amendment (it's not going away anytime soon people), and the fact that we have seen that prohibition does not work not only in this country but others as well, my ideal solution would be, for any country in general:

1) More rigorous background checks and Psychological tests to obtain a gun.
2) Training on how to properly handle a gun, as well as maintain it.
3) A one time class on why guns should be dealt with carefully and should be respected.
4) A Single License for all guns that can be changed to show what type of training the person has recieved (ex: military, cop, pistol, rifle)
5) A national electronic registry system to keep records of purchases and allow the system to flag excessive purchases.
6) Make guns cheaper by giving tax breaks to gun manufactures (Maybe, trickle down doesn't quite work well after all)
7) Keeping mass populated vulnerable places (such as schools and movie theaters) with at least one armed and trained staff member.

This is based on my observations on other countries, such as Switzerland, Japan, Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, China, South and North Korea, Russia, and United States, and I think gun related crime as well as mass shootings and other abuses of guns could be lowered through these 7 points, perhaps no matter what country it is in.

Clarifications:
2/3: Very basic training, meaning just a safety course, learning the gist about the gun you want (whether it's rifle, shotgun, pistol, no specifics) and how to keep your gun well maintained, the responsibility you have, and a little bit of target practice (so that the person knows how to actually shoot in time of need). The safety course and the responsibility course will be only one time every 5 years, and that's only if you now own more than one gun type, and will only be required 3 times max.

5: This is mostly to be able to report stolen fire arms with greater ease. The flagging system will be passive and only be used when other things start popping up (such as signs of alcohol abuse, a report of domestic violence, etc). If the amount is considered massive, then a one time letter will be sent to the home with some mandatory questions to be answered as to why you own so much ammo/guns.

6: I'm willing to cut out this number since trickle-down economics don't work too well.

At 12/21/12 12:35 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 12/19/12 11:14 PM, RacistBassist wrote: Homes with firearms have a higher suicide with firearm rate.

Irrelevent. Peer-reviewed, scientific studies in psychology journals find that guns contribute zero to the suicide rate. If we waved a magic wand and took away all guns our suicide rate would remain level. It would not make a dent. People would just use something else.

I've always thought the whole "Homes with firearms have a higher suicide with firearm rate." to be one of the silliest arguments I've seen. Not only does that statement fail to prove that owning the firearm is causing the suicide, it also fails to acknowledge that homes with a stocked medicine cabinet are going to have a higher rate of OD suicides, homes with rafter like wooden beams are going to have a higher rate of suicide via hanging, homes with a car and garage are going to have a higher rate of people gassing themselves to death etc. Obviously, if you're going to commit suicide, there's a good chance you're going to do it with something that can do the job well and is readily available. That doesn't mean that having a particular object in your home is making you more likely to commit suicide, just that if you're going to commit suicide, you're more likely to use that particular object.

At 12/21/12 02:01 PM, Revo357912 wrote: 1) More rigorous background checks and Psychological tests to obtain a gun.
7) Keeping mass populated vulnerable places (such as schools and movie theaters) with at least one armed and trained staff member.

Agreed with these. 7 really should just be a police officer like it is usually.

5) A national electronic registry system to keep records of purchases and allow the system to flag excessive purchases.

Should probably be a state program like driver's licenses. And flagging excessive purchases should be limited to individuals. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but it probably wouldn't help very much.

6) Make guns cheaper by giving tax breaks to gun manufactures (Maybe, trickle down doesn't quite work well after all)

Why do guns need to be cheaper?

Clarifications:
2/3: Very basic training, meaning just a safety course, learning the gist about the gun you want (whether it's rifle, shotgun, pistol, no specifics) and how to keep your gun well maintained, the responsibility you have, and a little bit of target practice (so that the person knows how to actually shoot in time of need). The safety course and the responsibility course will be only one time every 5 years, and that's only if you now own more than one gun type, and will only be required 3 times max.

I don't think there needs to be separate classes for different types of gun. Assuming automatics would be banned in this scenario, learning the basics of a gun in general would suffice for the average citizen. A course every 5 years would also be unnecessary except for perhaps the elderly.

I'm saying this simply because there are plenty of responsible adults who understand what a gun is and how to use it. But it would be a good idea to have a license that can receive "points" for violent crimes, where serious felonies would revoke the license and limit purchases to bolt-actions and place a cap on purchasing ammunition.

5: This is mostly to be able to report stolen fire arms with greater ease. The flagging system will be passive and only be used when other things start popping up (such as signs of alcohol abuse, a report of domestic violence, etc). If the amount is considered massive, then a one time letter will be sent to the home with some mandatory questions to be answered as to why you own so much ammo/guns.

An easier solution would be background checks prior to purchases. A stable person with no police record is going to be able to get away with collecting a ton of ammunition for the purpose of something villainous with or without the flagging system. Accidents will always happen and most restrictions in place today are simply missing the background checks.