[clarky07]

read your sibling comment, but here are a few to get you started: [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre [3] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E...

from [1] - Related or similar events

Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda, who visited the site a week after the massacre to offer prayer to the victims,[70] said that he "is worried that similar cases occur about 10 times a year in Japan."[32][71] According to the National Police Agency, 67 similar random attacks have taken place between 1998 and 2007.

People will undoubtably say that, well, this time 26 people died, but in this examples only 8 died. To that I'd say a few things:

1. Is that somehow acceptable? Most of our school shootings have had far less people die than the 26, closer to the 8 of these stabbings. It's still an outrage and a horrible tragedy, and I'd like to try to find a solution to the problem (though I suspect it's nearly impossible to prevent entirely).

2. Killing 26 5 year olds with a knife would not be that hard. It's likely that most of these others have been overpowered sooner by more able opponents, though I'll concede it's easier to overpower someone with a knife than a gun. On the other hand, it's also easier to overpower someone with a gun, if you have one as well...

[MartinCron]

Thanks for the reasonable response. I took exception to the word "plenty" for knife massacres, as they are exceedingly rare. The truth is, gun massacres are also exceedingly rare, so I guess there's nothing wrong with that parallel, other than the obvious:

1. It's logistically easier to kill more people with a tool that's better at killing a lot of people.

and the less obvious:

2. It may be psychologically easier to commit mass murder with a somewhat detached and abstracted weapon like a gun than something more primal and physical. The same way that many people would become vegetarians if they had to slaughter their own meat.

Regardless, the earlier comment of "please don't take my guns away" serves to create a false dichotomy. It's perfectly possible to create meaningful firearm safeguards without going out and confiscating your personal weapons of watermelon destruction.

[clarky07]

Thanks, I try to be as reasonable as possible, though I have to admit when I came across this thread I had an "Oh noes, somebody is wrong on the internet I can't go to bed" moment.

Back on topic. I'll give you both points, but I'm not sure how they relate to my comment or the parent. I don't believe guns are inherently evil. The are just things. Clearly my parent believes that they are evil and nothing I say will change his mind but that's neither here nor there.

>Regardless, the earlier comment of "please don't take my guns away" serves to create a false dichotomy. It's perfectly possible to create meaningful firearm safeguards without going out and confiscating your personal weapons of watermelon destruction.

I don't think it is. As I said somewhere else in this thread, the cat is out of the bag. There are far too many readily available firearms for there to be any meaningful gun control in this country short of completely outlawing them AND confiscating them with a search.

There are already lots of firearms safeguards, including background checks, waiting periods, etc. Most people who post on boards like these and say we should have tighter gun control have no idea what that means, or what kind of gun control we in place now. Most of it is fine (in places like TN where I live) some of it is absurd and IMO unconstitutional (in places like DC and NYC). DC has some of the toughest gun control in the country and yet also has some of the highest gun crime rates in the country. Taking guns away from lawful citizens just means the criminals don't have anything to be afraid of.

To get my handgun carry permit I had to go to a class, pass a written test, pass a shooting test, pass a background check, get approval from my local sheriff, and all of this came with a waiting period. (Now, simply buying a gun is easier, but it still requires a background check unless you are purchasing from a private individual). What is it that you (or anyone else) would propose we add to this? You already can't legally buy or own a gun if you are a felon or have any history of mental illness. There are however plenty of guns available for them to buy from private individuals who don't know you are a felon, or alternately they could just steal them.

[MartinCron]

What I would add. Not perfect, but not terrible either.

Require education/tests/checks/mental health screens for all purchases, not just concealed carry.

Close gun show loophole. Regulate private sales. Hold private sellers responsible if they sell to felons.

[clarky07]

As I said there are background checks and if you have any history of mental health issues you can't get one. I'm not sure what "test" we could or should give for buying them. Accuracy and knowledge of the law doesn't really come into play in this scenario. We'd prefer mass killers to be less accurate, and I suspect they already know it's against the law to kill 26 people.

>Close gun show loophole. There is no gun show loophole. It is just a private sale. but see below..

>Regulate private sales. This I might be ok with, but... how would you suggest we regulate private sales?

This doesn't sound like a very easy problem to solve. I'm certainly not ok with you saying I can't sell my personal property, but if you come up with a really good way of doing this I'd probably be ok with it. I'd love for the government to give us access to their background check information, but we've tried that and they haven't been willing thus far. Many people that I know who do sell their own guns from time to time require that the buyer have a HCP. If they know they have a handgun carry permit, they know they have passed a background check. However, since only a tiny percentage of people have this, I don't think it's a reasonable requirement.

>Hold private sellers responsible if they sell to felons. How could you possibly know this? If we somehow find a way to regulate it, then it wouldn't be possible legally. If we don't, or if they do it illegally once a system is place, there is simply no way of knowing it happened. There is also the problem of every felon having a first time. You could sell it to someone who never committed a crime and then they can use it to commit their first crime. Let's stop trying to find someone new to blame for everything. The guy who shot the person is the one to blame. Isn't that enough?

[MartinCron]

The easiest way to regulate private sales would require all sales from private parties to go to a licensed dealer or through a licensed intermediary. Either the dealer or the intermediary would be responsible for handling background checks and waiting periods. I can see local law enforcement being willing to act as intermediaries for private-to-private sales.

There are reasonable adjustments we can make that can absolutely have an impact. Reasonable people (of which you appear to be one) should work toward reasonable adjustments instead of spreading fear about the government taking away the property you already have.

[clarky07]

I could be ok with this, but there is a significant cost associated with it. You can already do this through an FFL, but it generally ends up costing $25-$35 and most people don't want to do that.

If you offer this as a service by the police, then it cost all taxpayers. I'd personally be ok with it, but I suspect that many people will balk at it. They'd be happy to pay for the "gun control" that consists of not allowing guns to be sold or simply taken away from people, but not as excited about paying to allow us to sell our guns to other people more safely.

Maybe this is something that could be solved by private industry, but someone would have to find a way to charge less to do it. FWIW, this intermediary service could be useful for more than just guns. People get robbed buying things like laptops on Craigslist all the time. Maybe you can help (i wanted to say solve, but i'll be realistic and say improve) 2 different areas at once.