Go

Done, no green.

Done. ng, ng.

peanuts

done

start

ding

DrWho, it is a little pointless showing you the statistics that will show how the Australian gun control works as I fear you are blind to the simple logic that if you reduce the guns and ensure only responsible adults can own guns if they have a legitimate reason for doing so, you will drastically reduce not only mass shootings but also general gun deaths. Works everywhere in the world except the US. I can only conclude that you lot are very special.

I am frequently absolutely stunned how many children shoot others and themselves in "accidents". In almost all cases they are through stupidity and recklessness of supposedly responsible adults who allow loaded handguns to be in glove boxes, under seats, in bags, bedside drawers etc.

By far the greatest number of gun deaths are hand gun suicides. I am not sure what we can do about that other than put on a warning label. I think the reason mass shootings garner so much attention is that people have no way to protect themselves (most mass shootings are fast and chaotic and even trained, armed personnel find themselves powerless.) So I can take reasonable precautions against death by fire arm by NOT having a gun in the house, avoiding contact with criminal elements, and staying out of dangerous neighborhoods in cities. I can even avoid unstable people in my social circle. But no matter how slight the probability, I can do nearly nothing about a crazy person in my church on a Sunday morning or at a concert or movie on a Saturday night. So, DrWho in particular, what, if any, legislation do you approve of? I am sincerely asking, because I would like to find a point of agreement with more "pro-gun" types. I sincerely believe people have the right to protect themselves, from which the 2nd amendment comes; and abrogating that right is not on the table; but I also don't believe any right is absolute.

Is it just me, or are most of the Easies getting Easier?

Ionibelle, legislation is not the answer. We have legislation that should have stopped the Texas church shooting, but it didn't. If there is an answer it is in more proactive treatment of the insane. There are a lot of people walking around free who should be institutionalized. With the exception of the Las Vegas shooter, can you think of one shooter who was not giving out warning signs to people who knew him before he went on his shooting spree?

I'm glad you and penguin don't want to repeal the 2nd amendment, however, if you don't think that the people who bring up gun control legislation even before the corpses have cooled from the last shooting aren't about disarming the American public then you are naive.

I will never understand how politicians convinced the American public that our retirement money was safer with them than with Wall Street.

And now they are trying to convince us that we will be safer if we give them our guns.

Spellacked, today's puzzle gets a 10 from my difficulty scoring program. That is pretty easy for an Iron Sudoku puzzle.

Go

Donr

"Bring up gun control even before the corpses cool" nice talking point. "It's too soon" That is a sick talking point. Is it too soon for the parents and loved ones of the dead? Is it too soon for the next massacre? Or is it too late for the hundreds killed this year and the more to come. Just admit that you are okay with the death toll. It is the price we pay for the freedom to own as many guns as we want.

1: SS is not a retirement program. It has benefits that pay out after a certain age, it is also a survivor benefit package, disability payment program, etc. Politicians did not convince the American public that their retirement money was safer with them than Wall Street. Wall Street convinced the politicians and American Public that their retirement money would be safer with them than in a highly regulated pension plan. Wall Street has proven that they are a very risky place to put your retirement plan. Ask anyone who retired in 2007-2010 if they wish they had had a pension instead of a 401K.

SS is not JUST I should have typed.

I will take the hit on naive, because I find that assigning motives to people I don't know personally (and to a lesser extent, those I do) does not further the dialogue. I understand your point on mental health, and I think? you agree with the laws that say people with those signs shouldn't be allowed to purchase/possess weapons? I understand that the law failed in this instance, but in my own town, a man was legally denied his right to gun ownership. It turned out our chief of police, and later the judge to whom he later appealed were correct not to allow him a gun. He attained one illegally and killed his young son and himself. If he had been incarcerated, instead of let go after his first illegal possession charge, that life might have been saved. So,what laws would change around mental health patients would you suggest? Again, honest question.

The problem in the U.S. of a mass shooting almost every day is not Mental Health. it is not law breaking or any reason other than there are too many guns and military style killing machines available to the general public. There is no way to dispute this. If all guns were more difficult to possess than it would be more difficult for people to use them on each other or themselves. It is simple. Will people still kill each other. Of course. But if it is impossible or nearly impossible for ANYONE to get an AR the instances of mass murder using an AR WILL decrease if not disappear.

Tuco, while I agree that the number and availability of guns in our country leads directly to our high level of mass shootings (and other gun deaths), I am loathe to do away with our 2nd amendment freedoms that other countries do not guarantee. So, if you had to pass laws or change policies, but preserve people's right to self-protection, what would you do?

lonibelle, do a little more reading into the 2nd amendment. While you are doing that remember that an amendment is a change or addition. It is part of the Constitution, but one that can be repealed or amended. http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-\nsecond-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-sla\nvery

But you asked what would I do. I would ban the sale and possession of military style weaponry to the general public. I would look to the New York State Safe Act for other ideas.

I am very well acquainted with the text of the amendment, the debates and positions and Federalist papers that surrounded its adoption, and the means by which it can be changed. I would say that repealing the 2nd is extremely unlikely. I do think a ban on future sales of automatic weapons might be workable; but there would have to be a buy-back and stiffer penalties for legal owners not properly securing their weapons. It might take decades to see a notable decrease in mass shootings.

Well then the sooner we start the better. No?

Another way that could be used is to repeal this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_L\nawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

Another thing. If you own a gun you MUST have to insure that gun against it being used to injure someone. Just like car insurance. If your vehicle injures someone you have bodily injury insurance. None of these things will stop all deaths but they will have an effect.

I have often thought of that insurance thing. in general, holding people accountable (or their insurance companies) can lead to real change.

EZestPZest. 8.

"I would ban military style weapons"

Well good news, they're already banned. Have been since 1984.

the Assault Rifle Ban ended in 2004. Is that what you are referring to? the 1984 bill increases penalties for using semi-automatic weapons in the commission of crimes.