Why is gun control so difficult in the US?

I would think so too. But that flaw may not manifest itself until after buying the gun.

I know a single anecdote is not data but... I used to have a friend (now deceased) who loved guns and bought every type he could get his hands on.

One day he had a lung collapse (doctor called it a spontaneous pneumothorax) and landed in the hospital where, in a morphine induced haze, he insisted that to me the doctors and nurses were Nazis. To me, he always seemed a little off after that - insisting the government was run by Nazis and positive they were coming to take his guns away. Maybe he was always odd and it just got worse.

Whatever, he already had the guns.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes.
And I want them effective, and scaled: so they flag some weapons and some categories of purchase more stringently than others.
And I want the circumstances of purchase adjusted contingently - with waiting periods or more secure identification or the like, to be determined by political debate and informed consideration, contingent on those flags.
And I think my preferences are common, that there is a broad and deep consensus in that matter among the American citizenry.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There are endless possibilities in life. We can't control them or predict when and where they might happen. I think it really comes down to whether we trust ourselves as a society, whether the discussion becomes two separate camps of extreme opinions, or a conversation on how to manage the problem and still maintain our liberties. I think both sides need to give something to the other.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not a gun owner, so it's difficult for me to respond as one. As a dispassionate observer, it doesn't sound unreasonable.

 

Panel 1: Gunner , shoving papers in Person's face, "This is the Constitution! It says I can have all the guns I want."

Panel 2: Person, hold up papers. "This is the Amended Constitution, which says you can have all the single shot guns you want."

Panel 3: Gunner shoots through Amended Constitution, blowing the brains out of Person.

Sadly, I'm no artist.

 

Who is they?
In Idaho everyone has guns. That's bear country and we've had bears in our backyard several times, raiding our trashcans. So 35 years ago I bought 3 (registered) guns, 2 rifles and a handgun (basically collector items) and I'm not afraid. They have been sighted in (at a range) and that's all they've ever been used for, to keep them in mint condition.

I'm no threat to the community and we are not at war in this country or don't live under a Dictatorship. And if life is cruel enough to place me in a position to have to defend my family, I do have the protection.

But the term AR stands for "Assault Rifle". No one except the military should need an assault rifle, because they are only effective as an assault rifleand terrible for hunting, or plinking.

I am not against the Second Amendment. I am for a "well regulated" system permitting defensive weapons. That does not need to include assault rifles of any kind. The term alone makes me heart sick. I've seen the results of war, I was a boy, but in the winter of 1945 I was hauling tar-blocks from the streets which were torn up by all the tanks passing by.

 

Did I single you out? Might there be a fraction of vocal gun owners who think that way? Just saying that is one of the arguments I have heard. I apologize if I introduced a generalization into the conversation.

 

Yup, just join the Army or the national Guard, you can shoot all the guns you want.

 

It is. Hundreds are shot every year because a toddler/child/criminal/drunk owner/careless owner gets a hold of a gun, shoots in the air/out the window/off the porch/into the wall or ceiling and hits an innocent bystander.

Imagine that one day you are getting dressed in your bedroom with your 4 year old playing on the floor outside. You hear a BAM! and wonder what happened. You come out and your 4 year old is screaming, lying in a pool of blood, a bullethole right beneath him.

Your neighbor's gun is a direct threat to your life.
http://abc13.com/4-year-old-shot-through-ceiling-of-familys-apartment/2703843/

A wise choice. And it's almost impossible to "accidentally" shoot an arrow. Not so with guns.

 

Hey, you're the one who was looking for ways to harm your neighbors (such as throwing hot coals on them), not me *shrug*

 

Kindly quote me where I have suggested or recommended dismissing the Constitution and disarming the population.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

Again, you have proven my premise for me. Thank you; now perhaps we can lay that pointless tangent to rest?

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I suppose.

 

Yet 5 decades of life in a culture of guns has not come to such a tragic end. Mind you I spent 4 years surrounded by some of the most dangerous weapons imaginable, yet I walked away unscathed. But that's not to say tragedy doesn't happen.

 

Note that you are conflating non-neighbor deaths and injuries with neighbor, and deliberate crime with screwup. A very high percentage of the presented arguments and evidence ostensibly for gun control do that kind of thing - misrepresenting the physical reality - usually even more blatantly than your more restrained take.
The number of bona fide neighbors shot in such ways is not hundreds per year. (My bet would be - and it's not easy to get an accounting of either one - that it's significantly lower than the number of people seriously injured by air bag inflation in cars, a hazard the government mandates.)
My neighbors's guns have never once even come close to injuring their neighbors. Thousands of neighbors's guns, decades of time, several different neighborhoods - never once even close. Even the deer hunting clown show hasn't had a neighbor shooting a neighbor. Yet.
My neighbors's cars, snowmobiles, chain saws, snowblowers and lawnmowers and so forth - carnage, by comparison. And barring the cars, not a whit more "useful" or "necessary".

The harm done by these fantasy and strawman arguments, such as the "can't fight the army" irrelevancy or the "belong to a trained militia" illiteracy, is directly relevant to the thread topic.
In my opinion, it is one of if not the major factors jamming the politics and blocking sensible gun control in the US. It's a major source of mistrust - bad arguments create mistrust - and the mistrust is key, central.

 

Straw buyers who wouldn't be found out any sooner than they are now? After a crime has been committed.

Larger than the current felony, ten years in jail, and $250,000 fine?

It seems people already don't fear the ten years in jail and $250,000 fine.

A national gun registry will never fly. It's just the first step in knowing where all the guns are in any confiscation scheme.
Tracing guns only happens AFTER a crime, so what does it prevent? Not the crime. Doesn't matter how reliable the trace.

 

How many times have gun-control people mentioned Australia? If they had enough political power, I doubt they wouldn't try.
But you're right. Trying is not accomplishing. But then it doesn't take a nation-wide confiscation/buy-back either.
Once guns are registered, it only takes incrementally making ownership illegal. Maybe start with senior citizens who need a financial proxy?

 

Have a look at utube...idiots with guns.
There are a few but it would be funny if the implications were not so serious.
Alex

 

Right, because the guy was crazy and should never had access to an AR15 to begin with. Moreover the straw buyer should also be charged with complicity in the crime. A register would show the original buyer.

So the SS registry is the first step to take SS away from people? An motorvehicle registry is the first step in taking your car away from you?
I should rather think that a registry would give you the right to own a legally sold gun.

And arming everyone with AR15s would prevent crime? We have proof that it doesn't.